rethinking the business-society interface
TRANSCRIPT
No. 47-2007 ICCSR Research Paper Series – ISSN 1479-5124
RETHINKING THE BUSINESS-SOCIETY INTERFACE:
BEYOND THE FUNCTIONALIST TRAP
Jean-Pascal Gond & Dirk Matten
Research Paper Series International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility
ISSN 1479-5124
Editor: Jean-Pascal Gond
International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility Nottingham University Business School
Nottingham University Jubilee Campus Wollaton Road
Nottingham NG8 1BB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 115 951 4781 Fax: +44 (0) 115 84 68074
Email: [email protected]://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR
RETHINKING THE BUSINESS-SOCIETY INTERFACE:
BEYOND THE FUNCTIONALIST TRAP
Jean-Pascal GOND
Dirk MATTEN
Abstract
This paper moves Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) research beyond a business-
centred and instrumental model by conceptualizing the inherently pluralistic nature
of societally embedded CSR. It argues that the major social sciences have
competing views of the corporation-society interface that inevitably result in multiple
conceptualizations of CSR. A pluralistic framework specifies four differentiated
perspectives on CSR. We show how this framework can enhance contemporary CSR
research and advance our understanding of the corporation-society interface.
Key-words
Corporate Social Responsibility – Business-Society Interface – Social Theory –
Theory-building
Addresses for Correspondence
Jean-Pascal Gond International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility University of Nottingham Business School Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK Tel: +44 (0) 115 951 4781 Fax: +44 (0) 115 84 68074 Email: [email protected]
Dirk Matten Hewlett-Packard Chair in Corporate Social Responsibility Schulich School of Business York University 4700 Keele Street Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada United Kingdom Tel: 416.736.2100 ext 20991 Fax: 416.736.5195 Email: [email protected]
How corporations affect society is central to management scholarship and
practice (Stern & Barley, 1996; Swanson, 1995; Walsh, Weber, & Margolis, 2003;
Wood, 1991). Over the last five decades, the debate on ‘Corporate Social
Responsibility’ (CSR) dominates research on the interface of business and society.
Despite the relative maturity of the field, however, scholars have yet to agree on a
definition of its very core object of analysis (Carroll, 1999; Lockett, Moon, & Visser,
2006). Moreover, this literature is deeply divided about the very status of CSR itself
and has been dominated by either proponents of social engagement of corporations,
or their critics, who believe that such initiatives use corporate resources misguidedly
(Margolis & Walsh, 2003: 271-274).
This state of affairs in the CSR literature has been echoed in numerous
reviews pointing to the many shortcomings of past CSR research. Critics stress the
poor theoretical foundations of the CSR concept (Lockett et al., 2006; Margolis &
Walsh, 2003); consistent lack of rigor in assessing empirical studies (McWilliams,
Siegel, & Wright, 2006; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Rowley & Berman, 2000; Ullmann,
1985); as well as weak explanations for dependent variables such as financial
performance (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Vogel, 2005). These judgements echoed
previous calls for a more rigorous approach to CSR – a recurrent exercise since
Ullmann’s (1985) characterization of CSR research as ‘data in search of a theory’
(McWilliams et al., 2006; Rowley & Berman, 2000; Wood, 1991).
In this paper we argue that the current limitations of the field lie in its limited
conceptual appreciation of CSR as a social – rather than just corporate –
phenomenon. Conspicuously, parallel to the palpable unrest with the extant CSR
literature, we have recently witnessed a number of new approaches to the field. For
instance, Aguilera et al. (2007) argued in favour of a much broader multilevel
framework conceptualizing CSR not only at the organizational, but most notably, also
at the individual, national and international level. Similarly, Matten and Moon (2008)
2
have argued in favour of understanding CSR from the perspective of the broader
cultural and institutional context of national environments and organzational fields.
Scherer and Palazzo (2007) have also provided new theoretical perspectives by
introducing the notion of CSR as a conceptualization of the political role of business
in society.
The key contribution of this paper lies in mapping out new conceptual space
which allows scholars to take the debate on CSR further in three crucial steps. First,
we demonstrate that, notwithstanding its merits and strong contribution, much of
the management literature on CSR is limited due to a narrow understanding of CSR
as a social phenomenon. Our approach starts from society and has the potential to
re-establish the balance between business and society in the CSR field. Second, the
framework distinguishes new research perspectives, categorizes emerging
approaches to the field (such as the three examples discussed above), and maps out
key trajectories of how to develop CSR research in the coming years. Our paper
then, rather than just agonizing about shortcomings and limitations of the current
debate recognizes the merits and contribution of the extant literature. Concurrently,
we provide a distinct new framework that paves the way towards a richer, more
theoretically robust and empirically relevant research agenda on CSR. Third, we
demonstrate how the framewok can enhance a pluralistic approach to CSR, develop
areas neglected in past research, and move CSR research beyond its present focus
on a functionalist understanding of the business and society interface.
In search of moving the CSR debate forward, many recent reviewers have
suggested abandoning the CSR concept (Rowley & Berman, 2000). They suggest
building on an alternative body of literature such as the resource based view of the
firm (e.g., McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006), or by focusing mainly on stakeholder
theory (e.g., Margolis & Walsh, 2003). Some researchers also suggest moving
beyond the global financial impact of CSR because they believe it represents a
3
theoretically ‘sterile’ effort (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Vogel, 2005). For us, this
would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Though we share the scepticism
surrounding the theoretical value of CSR we are, however, reluctant to abandon it.
First, because analyzing the business/society interface forms the basis of CSR
literature (Hinings & Greenwood, 2002; Stern & Barley, 1996; Walsh & Weber, 2002;
Walsh et al., 2003). Second, CSR lends itself well to addressing how corporations
impact society, not only because of a lack of alternative concepts, but also because it
is diffused globally throughout today’s business world. We argue that previous CSR
research largely overlooked its profound sociological nature, which explains most of
the difficulties encountered in theory building and assessment.
The paper is organized in the following way. The first section demonstrates
how the search for a unique, integrative, business-centric and instrumental model of
CSR has obscured its sociological and, in fact, pluralistic nature. Secondly, it offers
an alternative approach to address these problems: we reverse the past perspective
on CSR by starting from society and by considering diverse approaches to the
interface. Thirdly, it provides a new pluralistic CSR framework articulating four
differentiated perspectives: CSR as social function, CSR as a power relationship, CSR
as a cultural product and CSR as a socio-cognitive construction. Fourthly, it
demonstrates how this framework can enhance future CSR research by improving
emerging developments, generating robust research perspectives and by identifying
methodological mismatches in CSR research. The paper concludes with a discussion
of implications for research on CSR, and CSR management.
CSR TRAPPED BY FUNCTIONALISM
Our critique of CSR literature focuses on two fundamental shortcomings: first,
the CSR literature has never overcome a narrow, business-centric perspective and
second, it has been constrained by a limited, functionalist perspective. We address
each criticism.
4
A business-centric approach to the field
So far, CSR has focused more on the ‘Corporation’ than the ‘Society’, and most
models and theories have focused on the organizational level, rather than inter-
organizational, national or international levels of analyses (Aguilera et al., 2007).
Since the 1970s, several significant publications have identified CSR (Heald, 1970,
Preston, 1975; Walsh et al., 2003) as an important approach to analyze the
reciprocal influences of business and society. Conspicuously, Berg and Zald’s (1978)
literature review dedicated to relationships between business and society published
in the Annual Review of Sociology, does not even mention CSR. Beyond social
science parochialism, this highlights a persistent business-centric orientation in CSR
literature.
As early as 1975, Preston argued that this trend explained why economists
ignored the many works on CSR, published since Bowen’s seminal book (p. 446).
Moreover, it explained his own scepticism after he reviewed all the CSR literature
published between 1953 and 1975: “A careful review of Bowen’s book leaves one
impressed and somewhat dismayed that so little conceptual and analytical progress
has been made in the intervening years.” (Preston, 1975: 435). Regarding the
stagnation of CSR research during this period, he concluded:
“The answer, I think, is that serious analysis of the relationship
requires rigorous and comprehensive conceptions of both the
corporation and society; and these conceptions must be articulated in
comparable or at least translatable terms. […] Thus, it appears we
need to move on a rather different, and substantially expanded,
conception of both the corporation and society if we are to make
significant analytical or practical progress.” (1975: 446, original
emphasis).
5
We argue that Preston’s (1975) diagnosis remains largely valid and may explain
most contemporary scepticism surrounding CSR research (Lockett et al., 2006;
Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Rowley & Berman, 2000).
Most widely used definitions of CSR or Corporate Social Performance (CSP)
place the corporation at the core of their approach (Carroll, 1979, 1999; Wood,
1991). For instance, stakeholder theory is often used to model CSR (Clarkson,
1995; Wood & Jones, 1995). Some scholars have criticized it as presenting a very
business-centric (and dyadic) view of the firm (Rowley, 1997), and few of these
papers have adopted the stakeholders’ point of view. Even Margolis and Walsh’s
(2003) renewed research agenda for CSR focuses on the organizational level of
analysis.
Such an evolution represents an important move away from the original view of
social responsibility developed by economists like John M. Clark (1916) or Howard R.
Bowen (1953) who were interested in societal regulation of economic behaviour
(Marens, 2004). For Bowen (1953) social responsibility was a potential ‘third way’ of
managing privately social issues (pp. 8-21) lying somewhere between a pure laissez-
faire system and state regulation. Moreover, he assessed the value of social
responsibility against its potential to create welfare for the whole society and not
only for corporations. This shift from a macro-social to a micro-social and
organizational perspective meant scholars no longer used CSR to contribute to the
social mandate of organization theory by analyzing how corporations influence
society (Hinings & Greenwood, 2002; Stern & Barley, 1996). Indeed, Stern and
Barley, (1996:155) suggest that the dominance of functionalism in organization and
management research has reinforced this trend.
6
A functionalist orientation
Scherer and Palazzo (2007) convincingly argue that, from both methodological
and research orientations, business and society literature is rooted in an underlying
functionalist perspective. Methodologically, a positivist framework has driven
business and society research. Natural Science inspired this framework, which is
defined as functionalist (Burrell & Morgan, 1979), or positivistic (Donaldson, 1996).
It identifies causal relationships, and empirical testability that helps predict given
phenomena. Both theory building and empirical works use this epistemological ideal.
Since the late 1970’s, CSR theory-builders have sought a measurable unified and
integrative concept. The works on CSP illustrate this theoretical tendency (Carroll,
1979; Swanson, 1999; Wood, 1991). The lessening pre-eminence of this concept in
contemporary academic publications (Bakker, Groenewegen, & Hond, 2005)
demonstrates how difficult it has been to fit consensual and measurable constructs
with positivists’ expectations. Positivist methodology directly inspires most empirical
studies investigating the relationship between social and financial performance.
Typically, scholars hypothesize and examine the causal relationship between CSP and
financial performance (Hillman & Keim, 2001; Waddock & Graves, 1997) in order to
infer general laws (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). This perspective reflects primarily
technical interests (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007) and, paradoxically, helped immunize
CSR research from the normative considerations it originally sought to integrate
(Swanson, 1995, 1999). This congruency with the parallel resurgence of an
instrumental view on CSR partially explains the success of this approach.
CSR’s progressive focus on economic justifications of social initiatives eventually
confirmed a global functionalist orientation (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Scherer &
Palazzo, 2007). As Vogel ironically states ‘virtually all contemporary literature on
CSR emphasizes its link to corporate profitability’, and even an economist like Milton
Friedman would object to most contemporary approaches of CSR (Vogel, 2005: 19).
7
Among managers, both the emphasis on profitability and rhetoric about the ‘business
case for CSR’ prevail (Vogel, 2005: 16-45). Similarly, more than 120 empirical
studies have investigated the relationship between social and financial performance
(Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky, Rynes & Schmidt, 2003).
This view, sometimes labelled ‘enlightened self-interest’ (Jensen, 2001),
suggests that social responsibility primarily creates long-term value which maximizes
financial performance (Friedman, 1970), and declines through practices such as
cause-related marketing (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). Accordingly, CSR is not
concerned with public issues (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007) and tends to reduce CSR to
the status of a mere marketing exercise (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001). A growing
number of scholars embrace this view of CSR (Jensen, 2001; McWilliams & Siegel,
2001; McWilliams et al., 2006; Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Increasingly, these three trends led the functionalist perspective to dominate
research and ultimately to trap CSR in an approach that (1) considered corporations
as the main unit of analysis; (2) searched for a unified and integrative measurable
construct; and (3) sought to demonstrate that CSR increased financial performance.
CSR theory building and research need to move beyond this functionalist view.
REVERSING THE PERSPECTIVE ON CSR
Starting from Society
The starting point of our argument is the claim, that Business and Society is
both the ‘lowest common denominator’ and a suitable label for academic inquiry
dedicated to CSR. Whatever model or concept (CSR per se, Corporate Social
Responsiveness, Corporate Citizenship or CSP), the distinctive features are their
attempts to link interactions between the ‘business world’, and the surrounding
‘society’ (Bowen, 1953; Garriga & Melé, 2004; Preston, 1975; Preston & Post, 1975;
Wood, 1991; Margolis & Walsh, 2003). This is apparent in historical analyses of
social responsibility (Bowen, 1953; Carroll, 1999; Heald, 1970). For instance,
8
virtually all the definitions provided by Carroll (1999) captured some aspect of
overlapping areas between business and society. What distinguishes this concept is
its specific location at the business-society interface.
Previous theoretical developments of CSR abandoned the macro-social
orientation as well as the ‘society’ side of the equation to focus solely on the
‘business’ side. We contend that in order to advance CSR conceptually, we need a
theoretical approach that acknowledges multiple alternate perspectives on society.
This could be done by recognizing alternatives to the dominant model of corporation
and society commonly found in current CSR research.
Considering alternative paradigms
We argued above that the ‘lowest common denominator’ of all concepts of
Corporate Social Responsibility attempts to describe phenomena located where
business and society overlap. Thus, virtually all CSR concepts are sociological in that
they depend on underlying concepts of society, even when they are strongly
business-centred. Implicit concepts of society link to sociological paradigms that are
themselves related to social theories (e.g., Functionalism, Marxism). These societal
concepts are political to the extent that they frame representations of what should
be the main role of a business in society. Representations of corporate and society
interfaces contain different embedded normative views of how to manage or to
govern corporations which are rooted in political attitudes (Tetlock, 2000). Because
every sociological paradigm may imply a distinct concept of CSR, we need many
concepts of CSR.
Because many social theory and sociological paradigms describe corporation-
society interfaces, we apply a principle of ‘minimal required variety’ (Ashby, 1956)
and use a simple framework to account for minimal diversity among social worlds
and organizational functioning. Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) typology of sociological
9
paradigms and organizational forms offers a suitable heuristic to conceptualize
alternative businesses (made of organizations) and society interfaces, and
consequently the pluralistic nature of CSR (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Lewis & Grimes,
1999). According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), social science paradigms represent
two distinct dimensions: (1) an epistemological and methodological axis opposing
objective to subjective views of science and reflecting fundamental concepts of Social
Science; and (2) an underlying theory of society, opposing ‘order’ (the sociology of
regulation) to ‘conflict’ (the sociology of radical change). We use original opposites
loosely to analyze globally functionalist CSR literature. Consequently, rather than
using radical opposites to delineate incommensurable areas of research (Burrell &
Morgan, 1979), we use a continuum (Gioia & Pitre, 1990: 592; Lewis & Grimes,
1999). We interpret data as trends rather than absolute positions in order to address
the following questions: to what level do CSR models or concepts focus on change or
stability? To what level are they oriented toward subjectivity or objectivity? Our
goal is to capture diverse research and to explain potential opposition between CSR’s
competing models and concepts, in order to clarify theory-building logics and to
generate new developments. We do not depict CSR from any ‘epistemological
position(s)’ (Jones, 1996), and the typology is a heuristic tool to clarify positions
between CSR approaches rather than to posit the models into their own sociological
backgrounds.
This approach to the typology differs from previous ones (Lewis & Grimes,
1999) but respects Burrell and Morgan’s framework as a ‘heuristic device’ allowing
one to “[…] identify embryonic theories and anticipate potential lines of
development” (1979: xii). That interpretation is rooted in a tradition of successive
rearrangements (Astley & Van de Ven, 1983; Rao & Pasmore, 1989) and addressed
criticisms opposed to this framework (Deetz, 1996). In this paper, the typology
accounts for differences within the CSR literature and draws attention to
10
underdeveloped or marginalized areas of research. Our main research objective is to
stimulate theory building in unestablished areas by exploring trends within
functionalist literature. Figure 1 illustrates how the framework acts as a ‘compass’ to
highlight trends and possible alternative research perspectives.
FIGURE 1. Burrell and Morgan (1979)'s Framework as a Heuristic Tool
Radical change
Regulation
Objectivity
Radical Structuralism
Radical Humanism
Subjectivity
Interpretativism
Orientation toward
Regulation
Functionalism CSR literature
Orientation
toward Change
Orientation toward
Objectivity
Orientation toward
Subjectivity
Original framework (Burrell and
Morgan, 1979)
Adapted framework to
investigate less functionalist trends in the CSR literature
11
A PLURALISTIC CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
FRAMEWORK
The framework resulting from Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) heuristic provides a
pluralistic perspective on CSR that characterizes four research orientations, each
embedded within a specific concept of the corporation-society interface.
FIGURE 2. Overview of the Pluralistic CSR Framework
FOCUS ON CHANGE
FOCUS ON REGULATION
ORIENTATION TOWARD
OBJECTIVITY
CSR as a power relationship
CSR as a socio-cognitive
construction
CSR as a social
function
Socio-political view of the Corporation
and Society
Functionalist view of the Corporation
and Society
Constructivist view of the Corporation
and Society
Culturalist view of the Corporation and
Society Interface
ORIENTATION TOWARD
SUBJECTIVITY CSR as a cultural
product
Figure 2 shows four perspectives of the corporation-society interface: 1) CSR as
a social function embedded in a functionalist view; 2) CSR as a power relationship
embedded in a socio-political view; 3) CSR as cultural product embedded in a
culturalist view; and 4) CSR as a socio-cognitive construction embedded in a
constructionist view. Table 1 shows these four perspectives of CSR and the
corresponding Corporation-Society Interface.
12
TABLE 1. Dimensions of the CSR Pluralistic Framework
CSR Perspective
CSR as a Social Function CSR as a Power Relationship
CSR as a Cultural Product
CSR as a Socio-cognitive Construction
Functionalist view of the Corporation and Society
Interface
Socio-political view of the Corporation and Society
Interface
Culturalist view of the Corporation and Society
Interface
Constructionist view of the Corporation and Society
Interface
Corporation-Society
Interface (model and key words) Interpenetrating Systems
Stability, Regulation, Goals Integration
Power Relationships Struggle, Domination,
Power, Goals Divergence
Systems Infusing Values Values, Organizational
Culture, Context, Sensemaking
Co-constructed Entities Negotiated Order,
Performativity, CSR-as-Practices
Key questions about the Interface
How and why can Society and Business pacifically
coexist? Why and how can benefit from each other?
How and why can Corporations influence by Society? How and why can
Society influence or dominate Corporations?
How can Business integrate Society’s values? How
Society influence Corporate Social behaviours?
How Business (Society) is framing and constructing
Society (Business)? How is negotiated the C-S
interface?
Definition and role of CSR
CSR as a regulative function creating ultimately
the integration of goals between corporations and
society
CSR as crystallized power relationships between
corporations and society / CSR as a way to increase or to legitimize actors’ power
CSR as a set of social representations and
discourses reflecting local organizational, institutional, national and cultural factors
CSR as a provisory compromise – a negotiated
order – embodied within and supported by devices and practices crafted by
social actors
Social Science Orientation
Objectivity e.g., Explaining CSR
(positive) impact and CSR determinants
Objectivity e.g., Explaining the ‘real’ political objectives behind
CSR
Subjectivity e.g., Understanding the
national embeddedness of CSR
Subjectivity e.g., Understanding how CSR definition is socially
constructed
Political orientation
Stability e.g., CSR is taken-for-
granted and maintains the C-S status quo
Change e.g., CSR reflects changing
social forces at the C-S interface
Stability e.g., CSR offers a picture of
the local view of the C-S interface
Change e.g., Negotiations of CSR
content to reframe the C-S interface
TABLE 1. Dimensions of the CSR Pluralistic Framework (continued)
CSR Perspective
CSR as a Social Function CSR as a Power Relationship
CSR as a Cultural Product
CSR as a Socio-cognitive Construction
Empirical Illustration
Business Case for CSR in the managerial literature;
Corporate programs focused on instrumental
CSR
NGOs vision of CSR as tool to reframe their
relationships with corporations; Anti-CSR view; Corporations as
political actors
Differences in CSR definitions provided by
various national governments and
international institutions
Emergence of the markets for virtue made by (and of) actors constructing tools or practices embodying CSR
Development High – Dominant perspective
Low – Emerging perspective
Low – Emerging perspective
Very low – Perspective to explore
Related theory and concepts
CSR-1; CSR-2; CSP Corporate Citizenship; Critical CSR (e.g.,
greenwashing)
Implicit CSR; Responsiveness as sense-
making
CSR-as-practice CSR performativity
Illustrative papers
Carroll (1979); Wood (1991)
Waddock and Graves (1997)
Banerjee (2003); Moon, Crane & Matten (2005);
Jones (1996)
Aguilera et al. (2007); Matten and Moon (2008);
Swanson (1999)
Mitnick (2000); Rowley and Berman (2000); Pasquero
(1996)
14
The Functionalist View of the Interface: CSR as a Social Function
The functionalist view of the interface is framed according to the interpenetrating
systems model theorized by Parsons (1966). According to this perspective, the
characteristics of the interface are integration, stability and regulation. The ‘Iron Law of
Responsibility’ (Davis, 1973, Wood, 1991) suggests that regulation takes place through
society’s control over business, which sometimes involves a social contract linking the
society to the corporation (Davis, 1973; Donaldson & Dunfee, 1999).
In this view, CSR concepts and theories (Preston & Post, 1975; Wood, 1991)
depict corporations as satisfying society’s social needs at a given period of time
(Carroll, 1979; Tuzzolino & Armandi, 1981). Consequently, CSR can be defined as a
‘social function’, i.e. a regulative device to manage the interface and ultimately to
merge the goals of society and of corporations. Such a perspective is oriented toward
stability and does not allow significant social change (Jones, 1996: 34). It also
supports research about CSR as a ‘taken-for-granted’ phenomenon, objectively
assessable through available quantified data (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Ullmann, 1985).
The core question underlying this stream of research is: How can business and
society objectives converge and ultimately become integrated? This global question
suggests other research questions, such as: How can corporations’ behaviour benefit
society? How could CSR improve simultaneously corporations’ efficiency and society’s
welfare? What role does CSR play in integrating and regulating the corporation and
society interface?
This perspective strives to demonstrate how the goals of corporations and society
converge, and actually represents the main framework in the existing CSR literature. It
also explains the development of those three previously depicted tendencies
characterizing contemporary CSR research: (1) a business centric view of social
responsibility (Ackerman & Bauer, 1976; Carroll, 1979); (2) a positivist search for a
unified, universal and integrative concept (Wood, 1991); and (3) an attempt to model
and demonstrate a positive relationship between corporate social and financial
performance (Waddock & Graves, 1997, Margolis & Walsh, 2003, Orlitzky et al., 2003).
Notwithstanding the contribution of this research, they fail to deliver a strong theory of
CSR (Bakker et al., 2005; Lockett et al., 2006). Furthermore, while these works have
sometimes drawn on frameworks from related disciplines (e.g., economics or
philosophy) they have rarely influenced other social sciences (Lockett et al., 2006).
Corporations embrace a functionalist perspective of CSR in communications which
they disperse (Economist, 2005). For instance, business associations, such as Business
for Social Responsibility (www.bsr.org) or CSR Europe (www.csreurope.org), promote
CSR and detail the benefits of CSR on their websites. Many international institutions,
such as the European Commission (EC, 2001, 2006) and consulting companies use CSR
products and services to help societies and corporations reach their goals. Abundant
literature on the ‘Business Case for CSR’ (Vogel, 2005) reflects how businesses identify
‘win-win’ situations where both society and corporations meet their goals.
The Socio-political View of the Interface: CSR as a Power Relationship
The socio-political view of the corporation-society interface focuses on power
relationships. Corporations and society fight continually to obtain control over resources
and dictate the nature of the interface to the other entity. The corporation is like a
political arena (Morgan, 1980) that depends on resources from external groups (Pfeffer
& Salancik, 1978), whereas approaches to society range from ‘conflict functionalism’ to
critical perspectives inspired by Marxism and the Frankfurt School (Burrell & Morgan,
1979). The interface is sometimes depicted as a political arena characterized by
struggles, goals conflicts and, ultimately, domination.
Accordingly, CSR represents a ‘power relationship’, i.e. CSR reflects the capacity of
various societal groups (e.g., NGOs, activists, government) to influence corporations. In
this view, CSR represents the ultimate expression of corporate power over society, or is
a way to legitimize this power toward society (Levitt, 1958). Consequently, CSR
reflects structural forces underlying the interface at a macro-social level, can potentially
reform or alter corporate behaviour, and raises possibilities for social change. This
perspective can also be defined as objectivist because its goal is to discover the ‘real’ or
‘objective’ political or social agendas of a corporation (or society) hidden behind CSR.
Generic questions underlying this perspective are: How can a Society
(Corporation) come to dominate a Corporation (Society)? How and why can
corporations influence society? What underlying conflicts and power relationships
structure interactions of corporations and society? Many other research questions can
refine these questions. For example, How can corporations make stakeholders take
into account their will? How does CSR policy reflect social conflicts between managers
and labour unions? Can corporations exercise their citizenship in the political sense of
this term? What limits corporate power on society?
With a few recent exceptions, CSR literature has largely ignored this perspective,
and focused on either the political nature of social responsibility, or power games
reflected or embodied by this notion. Scholars approaching CSR through the political
perspective of citizenship (Matten & Crane, 2005; Moon, Crane & Matten, 2005) adopt
the former approach. A discourse on social responsibility ultimately reflects changes in
the interrelationships between corporations, societies and governments (Moon, 2003).
Focusing on power games exposes the political side of corporate-stakeholder
relationships, and emphasizes power and how stakeholders affect corporate behaviours
(Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003). Sceptically, CSR represents corporate power over
society (Levitt, 1953), is a superficial ceremonial exercise (Kuhn & Deetz, 2008). CSR
is also an ideology that can silence actors who highlight real problems by attracting
public attention to minor aspects of social issues (Jones, 1996), or it maintains
illegitimate corporate exploitation of resources from economically under-developed
countries (Banerjee, 2003). At best, CSR is window-dressing or greenwashing
(Deegan, 2002), often reduced to green rhetoric (Starkey & Crane, 2003). At worst,
CSR is criticized for helping to maintain the capitalist status quo (Jones 1996).
Empirically, many anti-corporate or anti-globalization movements or NGOs
subscribe to the socio-political perspective underlying the CSR approach. Movies
and/or publications criticizing corporate attempts that use CSR to reconstruct their
image (Bakan, 2004), or to manipulate political processes (Korten, 2001) also promote
a socio-political perspective. Those critics are like contemporary Muckrakers who, in
the early twentieth century, grouped together American’s journalists who attempted to
highlight and stigmatize Robber Barons’ misbehaviours and wrongdoing (Markham,
2002).
The Culturalist View of the Interface: CSR as a Cultural Product
According to the culturalist perspective, culture is where values are exchanged and
infused between the corporation and society (Strand, 1983). Corporation is ‘viewed as a
culture’ (Morgan 1980; Smircich, 1983) or a ‘cultural system’ that relates to the cultural
system of society. Corporations have varied levels of openness to their social and/or
cultural environments and this affects how they integrate and reflect societies’ values.
As a ‘cultural product’, CSR represents how desirable relationships between
business and society reflect cultural, institutional, political and social environments.
Authors adopting an historical perspective (Bowen, 1953; Heald, 1970) find strong
rationales for the embeddedness of CSR in the North-American cultural context. CSR
expressions and meanings depend on their context and are not universal. The
definition of CSR is, therefore, subjective, i.e. subject to the local appreciation of its
content. As cultural features of societies tend to be relatively stable, and focused on
how things actually are rather than on how they should be, this approach tends toward
stability.
The questions dominating this approach have been: How can corporations
integrate society’s values? How are societies’ values reflected in corporate social
behaviours? The questions generate basic research questions, such as: To what
extent can corporate culture facilitate adoption of CSR at a corporate level? How can
societies’ values spread throughout corporations? How and why does CSR content vary
across national contexts? What national or cultural features affect CSR?
Two emerging streams of research have bases in cultural premises. The first
approach focuses on the corporate level of analysis and describes how, in a supportive
corporate culture, managerial choices and decision-making contain values (Swanson,
1995; 1999). These models build on functionalist approaches, complemented by a
subjective approach, which reintegrates ethical and deontological considerations, and
addresses how employees will react to principles of social responsibility (Swanson,
1995). This research emphasizes sense making and sustainability in adopting CSR in
the corporation (Basu & Palazzo, 2008; Swanson, 1999).
The second approach focuses on a macro-social level of analysis and investigates
cultural and national embeddedness of CSR. Such works map cross-national
differences in CSR definitions and approaches (Habisch, Jonker, Wegner & Schmidpeter,
2004), analyze institutional factors that influence CSR nationally, and determine the
institutional component of CSR (Aguilera et al., 2007; Campbell, 2007). Typologies
capture national or cultural underpinnings of CSR. For instance, Matten and Moon
(2008) contrast explicit social issues management through CSR policies with implicit
social issues management that relies on institutional processes (e.g., legal framework).
The explicit CSR characterizes the American perspective on this concept, whereas the
implicit CSR reflects European approaches.
European consultation on Corporate Social Responsibility, launched in 2001, offers
the best evidence regarding differences in national perspectives on CSR. Governments
from many European countries replied to the original document of the European
Commission (EC, 2001) with contrasting views on CSR that reflected their national
backgrounds. For example, French and Italian governments stressed the need for legal
frameworks, whereas the British advocated a voluntary approach and perceived CSR as
a way to avoid direct regulation.
The Constructionist View of the Interface: CSR as a Socio-Cognitive
Construction
The constructionist view of the corporation-society interface stresses subjectivity
and acknowledges social representations, values and beliefs between both entities. It
also acknowledges social change in restructuring the interface, and the social realities
embedded in a changing corporate world where people construct and frame their
relationships with corporations. The corporation-society interface is where entities try
to construct or define other entities characterized by ‘flows’, or the interaction of two
‘brains’ (Morgan, 1980). It is where corporations and societies’ actors (individual or
collective) strive to influence and/or structure the interface.
In this view, CSR is a ‘socio-cognitive construction’ from corporation and society,
involving complex processes where each side tries to define the interface and frame the
nature of the relationship. CSR is a ‘negotiated order’, embodied and supported by
social responsibility devices crafted by various actors (e.g., government, NGOs,
corporations, associations, CSR professionals). The negotiated order of CSR is subject
to change, and is never reified or taken-for-granted, as it is a changing social
arrangement. At best, it represents a stabilised compromise about mutually and
legitimately acceptable rules of interaction between society and business. Accordingly,
CSR is a process of a social construction where actors attempt to frame and define its
content (Latour, 2005).
Two generic questions underlie this perspective: How does business frame and
construct Society (and vice versa)? Through what processes and practices are the
corporation-society interface negotiated and defined? Other research examines basic
questions such as: How do stakeholders negotiate the content of CSR? What
strategies, corporate or societal, control the content of CSR? How are corporations’
effects on society identified and restrained by various actors? What tools or devices
frame the corporation-society interaction and make corporations internalize its effects?
Who ultimately institutionalizes and elaborates CSR definitions, practices and devices?
In spite of many calls to investigate the constructionist perspective of CSR,
research has been scant (Pasquero, 1996). Rowley and Berman (2000) and Mitnick
(2000) invited researchers to consider the endogenous construction of CSR by
stakeholders. They emphasized the contingent and contextual nature of CSR metrics,
plus they acknowledged that “one of the outcomes of stakeholder action is the possible
redefinition of social performance” (Rowley & Berman, 2000: 414). These works
suggested refining stakeholder theory by relying on neo-institutional works
investigating longitudinal organizational fields (Hoffman, 1999) and/or by building on
Berger and Luckman’s (1966)’s social construction of reality. Beaulieu and Pasquero
(2002) provided a rare constructionist view of CSR in their study of Canadians
Accountants Associations attempts to build legitimacy that identified successive
negotiated compromises with stakeholders. The literature on CSR contains little about
either the social construction of CSR, or strategies deployed to frame the content of
CSR.
Although the constructionist view on CSR may appear more abstract than the
three other approaches, empirical evidence suggests that this framework captures
emerging CSR practices. For example, in making CSR reports, managers implied they
often develop their own definitions of their corporation’s social responsibility that they
then embedded in their reports and corporate discourses. The archives of various
European Commission initiatives show how social construction processes defined CSR.
In several EC reports (EC, 2001, 2006), CSR has been successively defined and
redefined, because of pressure from governments, corporations and/or stakeholders.
The European definition of CSR is consistent with the constructionist perspective, since
the compromise emerged from a real socio-cognitive construction.
APPLYING THE PLURALISTIC CSR FRAMEWORK
Our pluralistic framework can stimulate theory building by clarifying the underlying
assumptions of CSR research, and by overcoming barriers that previously fostered
functionalist reasoning. First, it provides a clear map of research emerging from CSR
and highlights areas of investigation neglected due to the functionalist perspective
(Deetz, 1996). Second, in this paper, Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) framework matches
the notion of CSR as continuum rather than incommensurable paradigms (Gioia & Pitre,
1990; Lewis & Grimes, 1999). Consequently, the pluralistic CSR framework can
generate new research questions by applying insights from adjacent perspectives.
Third, this framework can revitalize CSR research by radicalizing the four perspectives,
i.e. using them to re-bridge contemporary research to the four original paradigms
presented by Burrell and Morgan (1979). Such a strategy would promote cooperative
research with other social sciences such as anthropology, politics, international
relations, or communication. Finally, the framework can help to address
methodological problems inherent in current and future CSR research.
We detail how each of the four ways can facilitate pluralistic CSR research.
Pluralizing CSR research by developing each perspective
Developing functionalist CSR research. Most research on CSR responds to the
functional approach of the corporation-society interface and addresses three main
topics. One line of research develops a strategic view on CSR, and considers CSR as a
tool to improve corporate performance. It also reintroduces classical strategic
frameworks such as resource bases (Hillman & Keim, 2001; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001;
McWilliams et al., 2006; Porter & Kramer, 2006), or considers CSR as a marketing tool
to enhance corporate reputations (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001). A second perspective
refines the question of the financial impact of CSR by introducing contingencies that
affect this link or by analyzing how CSR generates profitable stakeholders’ behaviours.
So far, attention has mainly focused on consumers (Schuler & Cording, 2006) and
future research could investigate how CSR affects employees (Rupp et al., 2006),
shareholder or NGOs. A third line of research suggested by Margolis and Walsh (2003)
would treat CSR as an independent variable rather than a dependent variable, and
builds on organization theory to explain corporate investment in CSR.
Although functionalism offers numerous avenues for research, the underlying
search for corporation-society goals convergence is a strong influence. This research
continues to focus attention on micro-level or organizational level analyses and has
systematically adopted the corporate viewpoint, in spite of numerous calls for more
macro-social or societal perspectives (Hinings & Greenwood, 2002; Stern & Barley,
1996; Walsh et al., 2003). Studies that explain how to improve corporations’ collective
impact on societies and adopt the society viewpoint could advance research on CSR as
a social function.
Developing socio-political CSR research. It is crucial that CSR research
focuses on power relationships in order to ensure that CSR works for society and not
only corporations. It is promising that recently scholars from critical management
studies have turned from scepticism to engagement (Kuhn & Deetz, 2008). The
institutionalization of CSR through corporate practices, such as reporting, offers
potential tools for groups to advance social or environment issues on corporate
agendas. Previous research shows that this trend can ultimately undermine any reform
potential in CSR (Shamir, 2005; Starkey & Crane, 2003). The trade-off between CSR
diffusion and maintenance of CSR for reforming corporate practices, offers numerous
avenues of research. For example, to what extent can groups defending crucial social
interests and ordinarily silenced in the business world rely on CSR to legitimize their
claims? Should activists groups frame their claims around CSR in order to mobilize
around specific social issues? Can CSR be a symbolic resource for secondary
stakeholders? Social movements’ theorists already have numerous frameworks, such
as framing theory, that could help future investigations (Benford & Snow, 2000).
A critical perspective can help reintegrate a concept of power in CSR research by
in-depth investigation of power issues inherent in the deployment of CSR policies.
Although, numerous authors have used CSR to identify the risk of increasing corporate
power over society (Bowen, 1953; Levitt, 1958; Friedman, 1970), no empirical studies
have seriously documented this idea. Combining political theory frameworks of power
with recently developed stakeholder theory (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003) could
highlight how power games influence and shape corporate and public CSR agendas.
Institutional theory and impression management suggest that organizations can use
illegitimate means to acquire legitimacy (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992), thus, CSR could
shield corporations from their detrimental actions. Accordingly, future research could
investigate social responsibility programs engaged by organizations well known for their
illegal, or deviant, behaviours. For instance, how terrorist organizations or mafias use
socially responsible practices to build or maintain their reputation and legitimacy
towards their stakeholders.
Developing culturalist CSR research. The burgeoning culturalist view on CSR
offers numerous research perspectives. Within the corporation, few researchers have
investigated sense making or sense giving, how CSR is progressively adopted (Basu &
Palazzo, 2008), or the logistics underpinning the construction of a socially responsible
culture (Swanson, 1999). For example, how does CSR become part of corporate
culture? To what extent do corporate climates enable, or inhibit, the adoption of CSR?
At the macrosocial level, the recent diffusion of CSR across cultures and nations
offers an unprecedented opportunity to study the cultural differences underpinning
CSR. Previous studies have documented how different countries approach CSR
(Habisch et al., 2004), how French and US consumers’ view of CSR differ (Maignan,
2001), and how corporations present their social responsibility differently across
countries (Maignan & Ralston, 2002). Yet, many questions remain unanswered. For
example, even when previous research explicitly identified cross-country CSR
variations, we do not know why such variations occurred, or which cultural, national or
institutional features were influential. Those questions could be explored by building on
the ‘variety of capitalism’ theory (Hall & Soskice, 2001) as suggested by Matten and
Moon (2008).
A third research perspective would integrate studies that would simultaneously
investigate relationships and congruence between managerial, corporate and national
and supra national representations of CSR. Aguilera et al. (2007) provide a framework
integrating those perspectives that can support future empirical research.
Developing constructionist CSR research. The socio-constructivist perspective
on the corporation-society interface offers promising avenues for CSR research by using
rarely-used theoretical lenses. The socio-cognitive perspective could address questions
raised by the recent emergence of markets for virtue (Vogel, 2005) and the
establishment of a real CSR industry (Economist, 2005) that has new social norms or
metrics to evaluate or support CSR reporting (Global Reporting Initiatives, SA 8000,
ISO 14 001). For example, how have CSR entrepreneurs established markets for CSR?
What processes have turned CSR from a taken-for-granted notion into mainstream
business for financial analysts and top executives? Through what processes has CSR
evolved and become marketable?
The anthropology of markets allows researchers to investigate the social
construction of markets (Callon, 1998) by making calculations a necessary condition to
market construction. If morality, ethics, appreciation of responsibility, and
transparency are calculable, then markets for CSR can emerge. Déjean, Gond and Leca
(2004) show how measuring attributes of CSR by an entrepreneurial organization
promoted Socially Responsible Investment market in France.
The socio-cognitive perspective invites researchers to move beyond uncritical CSR
tools, such as databases provided by rating agencies (KLD in US, or EIRIS in UK) and
suggests investigating how private organizations defined, developed and legitimized
those CSR tools, practices and metrics. To date, it has been taken-for-granted that
such tools effectively assess CSR, but little is known about their construction,
legitimization and actual use by managers or corporate actors. Emerging strategy-as-
practice (Whittington, 2006) reintroduces those missing dimensions, while actor-
network theory offers insights for investigating the manufacturing of CSR tools and
metrics (Latour, 2005). Those frameworks can help future research on the social
construction of CSR practices and tools.
Finally, to understand and possibly reframe how real businesses incorporate CSR
theories and concepts, one must acknowledge and investigate the socially constructed
nature of CSR. Previous research defined the perfomativity of economics as the
capacity of economic theory to influence actual economies (Callon, 1998) and to
generate self-fulfilling prophecies in the business world (Ferraro, Pfeffer & Sutton,
2005). Little is known about the performativity of CSR or business ethics. The socio-
cognitive view of CSR suggests further investigation into how CSR theory (such as the
idea of a business case for CSR) influences beliefs and behaviours in real business
contexts.
Pluralizing CSR research by bridging the perspectives
Gioia and Pitre (1990) and Lewis and Grimes (1999) suggest building theories by
bridging Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) paradigms. Paradigm bridging explores
overlapping and/or transition zones of two by two paradigms and is often used in
organizational theory (Lewis & Grimes, 1999) in spite of criticism that it violates the
principle of paradigm incommensurability (Organization, 1988). Our approach to the
original framework fits only partially with such an interpretation. Indeed, the underlying
bases of the corporation-society interface cannot be combined because they cannot be
considered simultaneously through integrative and power lenses. However, from a
theory-building perspective, it makes sense to combine two by two insights and results
from previous research on the four perspectives on CSR. For instance, combining
insights of CSR as a social function with insights from it as a power relationship can
generate research questions that rely both on the functionalist idea that CSR benefit
corporations, and on the socio-political idea that CSR are manipulative tools. Table 2
shows how new research questions evolve by combining two by two insights and
perspectives.
TABLE 2. Pluralizing CSR research by bridging perspectives
Crossed perspectives on CSR
Approach to CSR Example of research questions based on CSR perspectives bridging
CSR as a social function and CSR as a power relationship
CSR is considered both as regulating tool aiming at improving corporate performance and as a way for corporation and society to influence each other
To what extent is the manipulation of stakeholders through symbolic CSR more beneficial for corporations than substantive CSR efforts?
Does the strategic use of CSR improve society’s perceptions of corporations?
CSR as a social function and CSR as a cultural product
CSR is considered both as a product of representations influenced by the cultural context and as a tool to integrate corporations and society’s objectives
To what extent is the CSP-CFP relationship contingent to national and cultural context?
What features of national business systems do affect CSR strategies?
Are specific types of organizational cultures more able to sustain economically beneficial forms of CSR?
CSR as a cultural product and CSR as socio-cognitive construction
CSR is considered both as a culturally embedded concept and as socially constructed through deliberate and emerging actors’ strategies
How CSR concepts and practices have been exported from the American cultural towards European, African and Asian cultures?
How actors are mobilizing strategically artefacts and institutionalized myths from their own cultural context to develop CSR markets?
To what extent is the construction of CSR practices dependent from the cultural context?
SR as a socio-cognitive construction and CSR as a power relationship
CSR is considered both as resulting from actors’ actions and as a way for actors to increase their power
How power games are playing in the construction of a legitimate definition of CSR between a corporation and its stakeholders?
To what extent actors providing CSR metrics and management tools increasing their power through that activity?
Pluralizing CSR research by moving beyond functionalism
Ultimately, our framework challenges the CSR debate to move beyond functionalist
reasoning. We have provided a map of existing CSR literature that we argue is mainly
bound by functionalist interpretations of the business-society interface (the lower right
quadrant of Figure 1). We map some avenues of future research that would develop
the business-society literature – and thus the debate on CSR – beyond the limits of
functionalism where it is currently trapped. Figure 3 provides an overview of promising
trajectories of future research.
FIGURE 3. Moving CSR beyond functionalism with the pluralistic CSR
framework
Radical structuralist perspective on CSR
Radical humanist perspective on CSR
Interpretativist perspective on CSR
CSR as a power
relationship
CSR as a socio-
cognitive
CSR as a social
function
CSR as a cultural product
Legend: The dotted arrows ( ) indicate suggested research trajectories for pluralistic CSR research
As a power relationship, CSR relates naturally to the original paradigm of radical
structuralism. In fact, researchers from critical management, who are now
investigating CSR, borrowed their intellectual tools directly from this paradigm (Jones,
1996). Furthermore, the development of a critical perspective on CSR, together with
insights from the constructivist view, helps link CSR to the radical humanist paradigm.
For instance, empirical studies highlight the dynamics of power relationships
underpinning the development of CSR tools and metrics. Future work can build on
critical sociology, especially the works of authors such as Horkheimer, Marcuse, or
Foucault, to develop a radical humanist CSR agenda. The epistemological foundations of
the culturalist perspective can easily be expanded to develop an interpretative approach
to CSR. This approach can build directly on symbolic interactionism or
ethnomethodology to investigate how various stakeholders groups elaborate social
representations of CSR and act in accordance with to these representations. Such an
approach also benefits from the constructionist perspective that highlights the dynamics
of CSR practice and the role of objects in actors’ representations.
Finally, the logic of radicalization shows how to move CSR research beyond the
borders of the functionalist perspective by collaborating with other disciplines. For
example, communication science, ethnography and constructivist sociology could
expand research about an interpretative view on CSR, while political science could
develop the radical structuralist and radical humanist approaches to CSR.
Pluralizing CSR research methods
Finally, a pluralistic framework can both improve the methodological foundations
of CSR research and suggest other methods. The framework invites authors to clarify
their positions and adopt appropriate research methods. As the majority of previous
works took the functionalist perspective, there was an obvious fit between methods and
theory building. However, emerging trends and the logic of radicalization suggest that
researchers carefully match methodological, epistemological and theoretical levels of
analyses. Gioia and Pitre (1990) and Lewis and Grimes (1999) suggested research is
anchored in a given social science paradigm. The radicalization approach suggests that
CSR research relies on methods from Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) original paradigms.
Thus, CSR research can use methods rarely used, while collaborating with other social
scientists (in sociology, political science or ethnography).
The framework provides different methodological implications. First, it can assess
how well CSR theory building matches methodologies and epistemologies in a given
social science paradigm. Second, according to the logic of radicalization it can help
import new methodologies by building strong relationships with original paradigms.
Third, the bridging perspective allows hybridization of methodologies. Fourth, it can
build theories, regardless of methodology.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Implications for research
A pluralistic CSR framework effectively supports pluralistic CSR research by
recognizing numerous alternatives and advancing these views. It also generates
research that combines insights, or radicalizes their premises in order to develop
dialogues with other social sciences. This framework is not integrative, like previous
CSR models such as Corporate Social Performance (Carroll, 1979; Swanson, 1999;
Wood, 1991), since it does not reconcile distinct streams of CSR research. This
framework explicitly clarifies the corporation-society interface and it underlying
premises, whereas past research was implicit. The new framework provides
alternatives that will support future theoretical and empirical developments, and move
CSR knowledge beyond its ‘continuing state of emergence’ (Lockett et al., 2006: 133).
Due to its ‘essentially contested’ nature, CSR research will attract debates and
controversies (Moon, 2003). The proposed framework highlights these controversies
but does not capture all the complexities and contradictions of CSR. Indeed, one of the
main limitations of the pluralistic CSR framework lies in reducing its complexity by
describing only four alternatives at the corporation-society interface. Building on a pre-
existing and already validated framework offers many advantages, but also needs to be
balanced with the drastic reduction in complexity inherent in a two by two matrix.
Future research can address this limitation by investigating the metaphors that underlie
actual representations of the corporation-society interface. The pluralistic framework
could easily articulate these metaphors to the four perspectives on CSR (Morgan,
1980).
Like previous bibliometric analyses (Bakker et al., 2005; Lockett et al., 2006;
Walsh et al., 2006), future research can systematically code articles from CSR literature
regarding trends and the influence of the four perspectives on CSR knowledge.
Finally, this paper’s use of Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) framework completes the
theory-building strategies, such as meta-triangulation that rely on this tool (Gioia &
Pitre, 1990; Lewis & Grimes, 1999). This research shows how this framework can de-
functionalize literature, marked by debates and contradictions, and dominated by one
social science paradigm. Creative adaptation of the framework, together with a return
to the original matrix, can benefit other concepts and literature embedded in a given
paradigm.
Implications for managers
The pluralistic CSR framework has strong implications for both managerial
approaches to CSR and CSR management. First, prescriptive management literature
often relies on an implicit functionalist view of CSR and tends to neglect its social and
pluralistic underpinnings (Porter & Kramer, 2006, critically, Vogel, 2005). This makes it
difficult for managers to understand the motivations of stakeholders or activists that
appear economically irrational or illegitimate. The present framework corrects this
problem by viewing CSR as a social function that explicitly states managers’ beliefs
concerning the corporation-society interface. For instance, for a given CSR issue,
researchers and managers can understand various perceptions of the problem by
successively adopting the four views of the corporation-society interface.
Second, the constructivist perspective invites systematic research of emerging
CSR industries and markets, such as social audits, certification, CSR ratings, CSR
consulting. Indeed, whereas calls for increasingly practical and relevant management
research abound (Hodgkinson, Herriot, & Anderson, 2001), little is known about the
relevancy of CSR, or the relationship between CSR theory and CSR practice. Future
researchers could build on the constructionist stream of research in order to study CSR-
as-practice and how practitioners of the new markets for virtue use CSR knowledge.
Thus, CSR research can become a pragmatic science which aims to enlighten
practitioners without comprising its academic rigour (Hodgkinson et al., 2001), or
sacrificing its goal to improve both management practice and society’s welfare (Marens,
2004).
References
Ackerman, R., & Bauer, R. 1976. Corporate social responsiveness: The modern
dilemma. Virgina: Reston Publishing Company.
Aguilera R., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. 2007. Putting the S back in
corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 836-863.
Ashby, W. R. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.
Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1983. Central Perspectives and debates in
organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 245-273.
Bakan, J. 2004. The Corporation. The pathological pursuit of profit and power.
New York: Free Press.
de Bakker, G.A., Groenewegen, P., & den Hond, F. 2005. A bibliometric analysis of 30
years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate
social performance. Business and Society, 44: 283-317.
Banerjee, B. 2003. Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and
the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24: 143-180.
Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: A process model of
sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, (forthcoming).
Beaulieu, S., & Pasquero, J. 2002. Reintroducing stakeholder dynamics in stakeholder
thinking. A negociated-order perspective. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted,
and S. S. Rhaman (eds.) Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory,
responsibility and engagement: 101-118. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An
overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 611-640.
Berg, I., & Zald, M.N. 1978. Business and society. Annual Review of Sociology, 4:
115-143.
Berger, P., & Luckman, T. 1966. The social construction of reality: A Treatise in
the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why and how
consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management
Review, 47(1): 9-24.
Bowen, H. R. 1953. The Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York:
Harper and Row.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis. Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Newcastle:
Athenaeum Press.
Callon, M. 1998. Introduction: the embeddedness of economic markets in economics
approach. In M. Callon (ed.) The Laws of the Markets: 1-57. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Campbell, J. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 32(3): 946-967.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social
performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility. Evolution of a definitional construct.
Business and Society, 38: 268-295.
Clark, J. M. 1916. The changing basis of economic responsibility. Journal of Political
Economy, 24: 209-229.
Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating
corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20: 92-117.
Davis, K. 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities.
Academy of Management Review, 2: 70-76.
Deegan, C. 2002. Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental
disclosures – A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 15: 282-311.
Deetz, S. 1996. Describing differences in approaches to organization science.
Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7: 191-
208.
Déjean, F., Gond, J.-P., & Leca, B. 2004. Measuring the unmeasured: an institutional
entrepreneur strategy in an emergent industry. Human Relations, 57(6): 740-
765.
Donaldson, L. 1996. For positivist organization theory: Proving the hard core.
London: Sage.
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. 1999. Toward a unified conception of business ethcis:
Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Review, 37:
414-446.
Economist 2005. The good company. Survey on corporate social responsibility.
January, 20.
Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. 1992. Acquiring organizational legitimacy through
illegitimate actions: a marriage of institutional and impression management
theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 699-738.
European Commission 2001. Promoting a European framework for corporate
social responsibility. Green Paper of the European Commission. COM(2001)
366, July.
European Commission 2006. Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs:
Making Europe a pole of excellence on CSR. New Communication of the
European Commission. COM(2006) 136, March.
Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2005. Economic language and assumptions: How
theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30: 8-
24.
Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profit. The
New York Times Magazine, September 13: 32-33, 122, 124, 126.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. 2004. Corporate social responsibility: Mapping the conceptual
territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51-71.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy
of Management Review, 15: 584-602.
Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. 2004. Corporate social
responsibility across Europe. Berlin: Springer.
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P.A. Hall
and D. Soskice (eds.) Varieties of Capitalism: The institutional foundations
of comparative advantage: pp. 1-68. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heald, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business: Company and community,
1900-1970. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press.
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G.D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and
social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22:
125–139.
Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. 2002. Disconnects and consequences in organization
theory? Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 411-421.
Hodgkinson, G., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. 2001. Re-aligning the stakeholders in
management research: lessons from industrial, work and organizational
psychology. British Journal of Management, 12: 41-48.
Hoffman, A. J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S.
chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 351-372.
Jensen, M. C. 2001. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate
objective function. Journal of Corporate Applied Finance, 14: 8-21.
Jones, M. T. 1996. Missing the forest for the trees. A critique of the social responsibility
concept and discourse. Business and Society, 35: 7-41.
Korten, D. C. 2001. When corporations rule the world. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian
Press.
Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. 2008. Critical theory and CSR: Can/Should we get beyond cynical
reasoning? In: Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.)
The Oxford Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility: forthcoming.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-
Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Levitt, T. 1958. The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36:
41-50.
Lewis , M. W., & Grimes, A. J. 1999. Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple
paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24: 672-690.
Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in management
research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of
Management Studies, 43: 115-136.
Maignan, I. 2001. Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-
cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30: 57-72.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. 2001. Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument –
Concepts, evidence and research directions. European Journal of Marketing,
35: 457-484.
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.:
Insights from businesses' self-presentations. Journal of International
Business Studies, 33: 497-514.
Marens, R. 2004. Wobbling on a one-legged stool: The decline of American pluralism
and the academic treatment of corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 2: 63-87.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives
by business? Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268-305.
Markham, J. W. 2002. A financial history of the United States. Vol. I. From
Christopher Columbus to the Robber Barons (1492–1900). Armonk NY,
M.E. Sharpe.
Matten, D. & Moon, J. 2008. ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for
understanding CSR in Europe. Academy of Management Review
(forthcoming).
Matten, D., & Crane, A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical
conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 166-179.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26: 117-127.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic
implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1-18
Mitnick, B. 2000. Commitment, revelation and the testament of belief: the metrics of
measurement of CSP. Business and Society, 39: 419-465.
Moon, J. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: An overview. In: International
Directory of Corporate Philanthropy, London, Europa Publications.
Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. 2005. Can corporations be citizens? Corporate
citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 15: 427-451.
Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 605-623.
Organization 1988. 5(2), Special Issue.
Orlitzky, M., Rynes, F. L., & Schmidt, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial
performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24: 103-441.
Parsons, T. 1966. Societies. Evolutionary and comparative perspectives.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall
Pasquero, J. 1996. Stakeholder theory as a constructivist paradigm. Paper
presented at the Conference of the International Association for Business and
Society, San Diego, US.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2006. Strategy and society. The link between
competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business
Review, 12: 78-92.
Preston, L. E. 1975. Corporation and society: the search for a paradigm. Journal of
Economic Literature, 13: 434-454.
Preston, L. E., &, Post, J. 1975. Private management and public policy: The
principle of public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Rao, M. V. H., & Pasmore, W. A. 1989. Knowledge and interests in organization studies:
A conflict of interpretations. Organization Studies, 10: 225-239.
Rowley, T. J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy of Management Review, 22: 887-910.
Rowley, T. J., & Berman, S. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance.
Business and Society, 39: 397-418.
Rowley, T. J., & Moldeveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-
and identity-based model of stakeholder mobilization. Academy of
Management Review, 28: 204-220.
Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V. & Williams, C. A. 2006. Employees’ reactions
to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal
of Organizational Behaviour, 27: 537-543.
Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. 2007. Towards a political conception of corporate
responsibility – business and society seen from an Habermasian perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 32(4) (in press).
Schuler, D. A., & Cording, M. 2006. A Corporate social performance – corporate
financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of
Management Review, 31/3: 540-558.
Shamir, R. 2005. Mind the gap: Commodifying corporate social responsibility.
Symbolic Interaction, 28: 229-253.
Smircich, L. 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28: 339-359.
Starkey, K., & Crane, A. 2003. Toward green narrative: management and the
evolutionary epic. Academy of Management Review, 28: 220-243.
Stern, R. N., & Barley, S. R. 1996. Organizations and social systems: Organization
theory’s neglected mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 146–162.
Strand, R. 1983. A system paradigm of organizational adaptation to the social
environment. Academy of Management Review, 8: 90-97.
Swanson, D. L. 1995. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the Corporate
Social Performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20: 43-64.
Swanson, D. L. 1999. Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research
strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review,
24: 506-521.
Tetlock, P. E. 2000. Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease
and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science
Quarterly, 45: 293–326.
Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. 1981. A need-hierarchy framework for assessing
corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6: 21-28.
Ullmann, A. 1985. Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationship
among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of US
firms. Academy of Management Review, 10: 540-557.
Vogel, D. 2005. The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate
social responsibility. Washigton: Brookings institution Press.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial
performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 303-319.
Walsh, J.P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. 2003. Social Issues and Management: Our Lost
Cause Found. Journal of Management, 29: 859-882.
Whittington, R. 2006. Completing the practice turn in strategy research: The work of
strategizing and organizing: for a practice perspective. Organization Studies,
27(5): 613-634.
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management
Review, 16: 691-718.
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. 1995. Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in
empirical research in corporate social performance. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 3: 229-267.
Research Paper Series International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility
ISSN 1479-5124
Editor: Jean-Pascal Gond The ICCSR Research Papers Series is intended as a first-hand outlet for research output of ICCSR. These include papers presented at symposiums and seminars, first drafts of papers intended for submission in journals and other reports on ongoing or completed research projects. The objective of the ICCSR Research Papers Series is twofold: First, there is a time goal: Given the quality of ICCSR publication, the targeted journals normally require large time spans between submission and publication. Consequently, the ICCSR Research Papers Series serves as a preliminary airing to working papers of ICCSR staff and affiliates which are intended for subsequent publication. By this, research output can be made available for a selected public which will not only establish ICCSR’s lead in advancing and developing innovative research in CSR but will also open the opportunity to expose ideas to debate and peer scrutiny prior to submission and/or subsequent publication. Second, the ICCSR Research Papers Series offers the opportunity of publishing more extensive works of research than the usual space constraints of journals would normally allow. In particular, these papers will include research reports, data analysis, literature reviews, work by postgraduate students etc. which could serve as a primary data resource for further publications. Publication in the ICCSR Research Paper Series does not preclude publication in refereed journals. The ICCSR Research Papers Series consequently is interested in assuring high quality and broad visibility in the field. The quality aspect will be assured by establishing a process of peer review, which will normally include the Editor of the ICCSR Research Papers Series and one further academic in the field. In order to achieve a reasonable visibility the ICCSR Research Papers Series has full ISSN recognition and is listed in major library catalogues worldwide. All papers can also be downloaded at the ICCSR website.
Published Papers
No. 01-2003 Wendy Chapple & Richard Harris Accounting for solid waste generation in measures of regional productivity growth
No. 02-2003 Christine Coupland Corporate identities on the web: An exercise in the construction and deployment of ‘morality’
No. 03-2003 David L. Owen Recent developments in European social and environmental reporting and auditing practice – A critical evaluation and tentative prognosis
No. 04-2003 Dirk Matten & Andrew Crane Corporate Citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization
No. 05-2003 Karen Williams, Mike Geppert & Dirk Matten Challenges for the German model of employee relations in the era of globalization
No. 06-2003 Iain A. Davies & Andrew Crane Ethical Decision Making in Fair Trade Companies
No. 07-2003 Robert J. Caruana Morality in consumption: Towards a sociological perspective
No. 08-2003 Edd de Coverly, Lisa O’Malley & Maurice Patterson Hidden mountain: The social avoidance of waste
No. 09-2003 Eleanor Chambers, Wendy Chapple, Jeremy Moon & Michael Sullivan CSR in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting
No. 10-2003 Anita Fernandez Young & Robert Young Corporate Social Responsibility: the effects of the Federal Corporate Sentencing Guidelines on a representative self-interested corporation
No. 11-2003 Simon Ashby, Swee Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann Industry self-regulation: A game-theoretic typology of strategic voluntary compliance
No. 12-2003 David A. Waldman, Donald Siegel & Mansour Javidan Transformational leadership and CSR: A meso level approach
No. 13-2003 Jeremy Moon, Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society (2nd Edition)
No. 14-2003 Anita Fernandez Young, Jeremy Moon & Robert Young The UK Corporate Social Responsibility consultancy industry: a phenomenological approach
No. 15-2003 Andrew Crane In the company of spies: The ethics of industrial espionage
No. 16-2004 Jan Jonker, Jacqueline Cramer and Angela van der Heijden Developing Meaning in Action: (Re)Constructing the Process of Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Companies
No. 17-2004 Wendy Chapple, Catherine J. Morrison Paul & Richard Harris Manufacturing and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Cost Implications of Voluntary Waste Minimisation
No. 18-2004 Brendan O’Dwyer Stakeholder Democracy: Challenges and Contributions from Accountancy
No. 19-2004 James A. Fitchett Buyers be Wary: Marketing Stakeholder Values and the Consumer
No. 20-2004 Jeremy Moon Government as a Driver of Corporate Social Responsibility: The UK in Comparative Perspective
No. 21-2004 Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten Questioning the Domain of the Business Ethics Curriculum: Where the Law ends or Where it Starts?
No. 22-2004 Jem Bendell Flags of inconvenience? The global compact and the future of United Nations
No. 23-2004 David Owen and Brendan O’Dwyer Assurance Statement Quality in Environmental, Social and Sustainability Reporting: a Critical Evaluation of Leading Edge Practice
No. 24-2004 Robert J. Caruana Morality in consumption: towards a multidisciplinary perspective
No. 25-2004 Krista Bondy, Andy Crane & Laura Browne Doing the Business: A film series programmed by ICCSR in conjunction with Broadway Cinema
No. 26-2004 Stanley Chapman Socially Responsible Supply Chains: Marks & Spencer in Historic Perspective
No. 27-2004 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility: Reporting Workplace Issues
No. 28-2004 Jacqueline Cramer, Angela van der Heijden and Jan Jonker Corporate Social Responsibility: Balancing Between Thinking and Acting
No. 29-2004 Dirk Matten and Jeremy Moon 'Implicit' and 'Explicit' CSR: A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe
No. 30-2005 Nigel Roome and Jan Jonker Whistling in the Dark
No. 31-2005 Christine Hemingway The Role of Personal Values in Corporate Social Entrepreneurship
No. 32-2005 David Owen Corporate Social Reporting and Stakeholder Accountability The Missing Link
No. 33-2005 David Owen CSR After Enron: A Role for the Academic Accounting Profession?
No. 34-2006 Judy Muthuri, Jeremy Moon and Dirk Matten Employee Volunteering And The Creation Of Social Capital
No. 35-2006 Jeremy Moon and Kate Grosser Best Practice on Gender Equality in the UK: Data, Drivers and Reporting Choices
No. 36-2006 Amanda Ball Environmental Accounting as ‘Workplace Activism’
No. 37–2006 Kenneth M. Amaeshi & Bongo Adi Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Utlish
No. 38-2006 Aly Salama The ICCSR UK Environmental & Financial Dataset 1991-2002
No. 39-2006 Kenneth M Amaeshi, Bongo C Adi, Chris Ogbechie and Olufemi O Amao Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Nigeria: western mimicry or indigenous practices?
No. 40-2006 Krista Bondy, Dirk Matten and Jeremy Moon MNC Codes of Conduct: CSR or Corporate Governance?
No. 41-2006 Jan Jonker and Michel van Pijkeren In Search of Business Strategies for CSR No. 42-2006 Stephanos Anastasiadis Understanding corporate lobbying on its own terms No. 43-2006 Nahee Kang
Analysing ‘System Change’: The Role of Institutional Complementarity in Corporate Governance
No. 44-2006 M. Shahid Ebrahim and Ehsan Ahmed Cooperative Home Financing No. 45-2006 Nahee Kang A Critique of the “Varieties of Capitalism” Approach No. 46-2007 Kenneth Amaeshi, Onyeka Kingsley Osuji and Paul Nnodim Corporate Control and Accountability in supply chains of Multinational
Corporations: Clarifications and Managerial Implications No. 47-2007 Jean-Pascal Gond & Dirk Matten
Rethinking the Business-Society Interface: Beyond the Functionalist Trap