Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Directors’ Roles in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Stakeholder Perspective

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose that corporate directors are important in helping organizations deal with two major issues of stakeholders. First, directors can help manage the interests of organizational stakeholders, and second, they assist in protecting the interests of their organizations as stakeholders in society. Their contribution can be conceptualized as the directors’ roles in corporate social responsibility (DR-CSR). We identify two types of DR-CSR, organization-centered and society-centered roles. Based on a study of 120 corporate directors, we observe that the more concern that corporate directors have for stakeholders, the more likely that they will perceive the need to perform their DR-CSR effectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilera, R.V. and G. Jackson: 2003, ‘The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants’, Academy of Management Review 28 (3), 447-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A.A., J.H. Waterhouse, and R.B. Wells: 1997, ‘A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement’, Sloan Management Review, 38 (3), 25-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W.: 1990. ‘Market networks and corporate behavior’, American Journal of Sociology 96(3), 589-625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney J.B. 2001. ‘Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view’. Journal of Management 27, 643-650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B., G. Keim and C. Zeithaml: 1985, ‘An empirical evaluation of the potential for including shareholders in corporate constituency programs’, Academy of Management Journal 28: 180-200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berle. A. and G. Means. 1932. The Modern Corporation and Private Property, London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boddewyn, J. J. 1988, ‘Political Aspects of MNE Theory’, Journal of International Business Studies 19(3): 341-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M. 2004. ‘Social influences on corporate political donations in Britain’, British Journal of Sociology 55 (1),56-71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. and L. J. D. Wacquant,1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. N., and P. Cochran: 1991. ‘The stakeholder theory of the firm: Implications for business and society theory and research’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for Business and Society, Sundance, Utah.

  • Buchholz, R.A. 1992. Business environments and public policy, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz, R.A. 1993. Principles of environmental management: The greening of business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, C. 1987. ‘The existence of self-enforcing implicit contracts’, Quarterly Journal of Economics. 102 (1), 147-159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulow, J, and K. Rogoff, 1989, ‘A Constant Recontracting Model of Sovereign Debt’, Journal of Political Economy, 97:155-178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. 1983. Corporate Ties and Cooptation: Networks of Market Constraints and Directorate Ties in the American Economy. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M.A. and J.D. Westphal: 2001. ‘The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making’, Academy of Management Journal 44 (4), 639-660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., 1999. ‘Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct’, Business and Society, 38 (3): 268-295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R. 1990. ‘The relationship between racism and racial identity among White Americans: An exploratory investigation’. Journal of Counseling and Development 69: 46-50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charkham, J.P. 1994, Keeping Good Company: A Study of Corporate Governance in Five Countrie,. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. 2011, ‘The role of ethical leadership versus institutional constraints: A simulation study of financial misreporting by CEOs’. Journal of Business Ethics 93 Suppl 1: 33-52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. and P. Bouvain: 2009, ‘Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany’, Journal of Business Ethics 87, 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M.B E. 1995, ‘A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporation’, Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92-117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colella, A., 2001. ‘Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities’, Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 100-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J.S. 1990 Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, D. J., and Montgomery, C. A. 1995. ‘Competing on Resources: Strategy in the 1990 s’, Harvard Business Review, 73(4): 118-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, B., A.C. Shapiro, 1987 Corporate Stakeholders and Corporate Finance. Financial Management (Spring), aa, 5-14.

  • Cummings, J. L. and Doh, J. P., 2000. ‘Identifying who matters: Mapping key players in multiple environments’, California Management Review, 42(2): 83 -104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutting, B, and Kouzmin, A. 2002, ‘Evaluating corporate board cultures and decision making’, Corporate Governance, 2(2):27-45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. 2002. ‘Introduction – The Legitimizing Effect of Social and Environmental Disclosures – A Theoretical Foundation’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 15(3): 282-311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demb, A., and F. Neubauer, 1992. ‘The corporate board: Confronting the paradoxes’, Long Range Planning, 25(3): 9-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L., 1990. ‘The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory’, Academy of Management Review , 15 (3): 369-381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. 1995. ‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence’, Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egri, C.P. 1999. ‘The environmental round table role-play exercise: the dynamics of multi-stakeholder decision-making processes’, Journal of Management Education, 23(1): 95-112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. ‘Agency theory: An assessment and review’, Academy of Management Review, 14(1):57-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J., 1997, Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of the 21 st century business, Capstone, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., and M. Jensen. 1983. ‘Separation of ownership and control’, Journal of Law and Economics, 26:301-325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, M. L., and Alexander, J. A. 1987. ‘Governing boards and profound organizational change in hospitals’, Medical Care Review, 46(2), 157-187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D.P. and Milliken, F.J. 1999, ‘Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups’, Academy of Management Review, 24: 489-506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, London: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., 1999. ‘Divergent stakeholder theory’, Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 233-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. 1999. ‘Stakeholders influence strategies’, Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J.R. and Kazanjian, R. 1986. Strategy implementation: The role of structure in process. St. Paul: West Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, J., and Buchholz, R. 1987. ‘The political pursuit of competitive advantage: What business can gain from government? ‘In A. Marcus, A. Kaufman, and D. Beam (Eds.), Business strategy and public policy,231-252. New York: Quorum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Getz, K.A. 1993. ‘Selecting corporate political tactics’. In B. Mitnick (Ed.), Corporate political agency: 152-170. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Getz, K. A. 1997. ‘Research in corporate political action: Integration and assessment’. Business and Society, 36(1): 32-72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia D. A. 1999. ‘Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing’, Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 228-232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R.H., Owen, D. and Adams, C. 1996. Accounting and Accountability. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. and Westphal, J.D. 1999. ‘Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 473-506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. 1992. ‘Epistemic Communities And International Policy Coordination – Introduction’. International Organization, 46(1):1-35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halal, W. E. 1990. ‘The new management: Business and social institutions for the information age’, Business in the Contemporary World, 2: 41-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S. and Freeman, R. E. 1999. ‘Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives’, Academy of Management Review, 42 (5): 479-495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C.W.L. and Jones, T.M. 1992. ‘Stakeholder-agency theory’, Journal of Management Studies, 29(2): 131-154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman A. J., Michael A. H. (1999) ‘Corporate Political Strategy Formulation: A Model of Approach, Participation, and Strategy Decisions’. Academy of Management Review 24(4): 825-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman A. J., Keim G. D., Luce R. A. (2001) Board Composition and Stakeholder Performance: Do Stakeholder Directors Make a Difference?’. Business and Society 40 (3): 295-314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman A., Zardkoohi A., Bierman L. (1999) Corporate political strategies and firm performance: Indications of firm-specific benefits from personal service in the U.S. government’. Strategic Management Journal 20: 67-81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrebiniak, L. G., and William, F. J., 1985, ‘Organizational adaptation, strategic choice and environmental determinism’, Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 336-349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, H. 1998, ‘A typology of the theories of the roles of governing boards’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 6 (2): 101-111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. 2000, ‘Boards of directors in SMEs: a review and research agenda’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12 (2): 271- 290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I. M. and McLaughlin, G. L. 2001. ‘Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach’, Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 397-415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C., 1986. ‘Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers’, American Economic Review, 76: 323-329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. 1995. ‘Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics’. Academy of Management Review, 20: 404-437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.M. and Wicks, A.C., 1999. ‘Convergent stakeholder theory’, Academy of Management Review, 24 (2):206-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassinis, G. and Vafeas, N. 2002. ‘Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation’, Strategic Management Journal, 23(5):399-415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keim, G., and Baysinger, B. 1988. ‘The efficacy of business political activity’, Journal of Management, 14: 163-180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keim, G., and Zeithaml, C. 1986. ‘Corporate political strategies and legislative decision making: A review and contingency approach’, Academy of Management Review, 11: 828-843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korac-Kakabadse N., Kakabadse A.X., Kouzmin A. (2001) ‘Board governance and company performance: any correlations?’. Corporate Governance 1 (1): 24-30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosnik, R. D. 1987. ‘Greenmail: A study of board performance in corporate governance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32:163-185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J., and Heskett, J. 1992. Corporate Culture and Performance, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, M., 2000. ‘Corporate political strategy and legislative decision making: The impact of corporate legislative influence activities’, Business and Society, 39:76-93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorsch, J. W. and Maclver, E. A. 1989. Pawns or Potentates: The Reality of America’s Corporate Boards, Boston: Harvard School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. and N. Pless: 2009, ‘Business Leaders as Citizens of the World: Advancing Humanism on a Global Scale’, Journal of Business Ethics 88, 537–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahon, J. E., 1989. ‘Corporate Political Strategy’, Business in the Contemporary World, 2 (1): 50-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, I. 1985. ‘The Limits of Business Self-Regulation’, California Management Review, 27 (3): 132 – 147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallette, P. and Fowler, K. L. 1992. ‘Effects of board composition and stock ownership on the adoption of poison pills’. Academy of Management Journal, 35:1010-1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G.: 1987. ‘The Structure of Emotional Appraisal: 1984 Presidential Candidates’. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, July 4–7, 1987, San Francisco, CA.

  • Marcus, A. A. 1993. Business and society: Ethics, government and the world economy, Homewood, Il: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. 1993. Socially Responsible Accounting, London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E., 2004, ‘Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth’, Academy of Management Review, 29(3): 520-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, M. 1987. ‘Non-profit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function’, in W. W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector, New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mileham, P. 1995. Corporate leadership: How well do non-executive influence Boards? Journal of General Management, 21(2): 1-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S.: 1992. ‘Establishing an effective board of directors’, a speech given at the Seminar on Establishing an Effective Board of Directors, August 4, 1992.

  • Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B. and Wood, D. 1997. ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts’, Academy of Management Review, 22 (4): 853 – 886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitnick, B. 1993. Choosing agency and competition. In B. Mitnick (Ed.), Corporate political agency, 1-12. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monks R.A.G., Minow N. (1996) Corporate Governance, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J.: 2003. ‘The Global Context: Multinational Enterprises, Labor Standards, And Regulation’, in L. P. Hartman, D. G. Arnold and R. E. Wokutch (eds.), Rising above sweatshops: Innovative approaches to global labor challenges (Westport, Preager).

  • Neilsen, E., Rao, H., and Hayagreeva, M. V. 1987. ‘The Strategy-Legitimacy Nexus: A Thick Description’, Academy of Management Review, 12(3): 523-533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberman, W. 1993. ‘Strategy and tactic choice in an institutional resource context’. In B. Mitnick (Ed.), Corporate political agency: 301-324. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, S. and Watson, R. 1999. ‘Corporate performance and stakeholder management: Balancing shareholder and customer interests in the U. K.’, Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 526-538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, M. and Spira, L. F. 2000, ‘Who steals my purse steals trash…’: Reputation as a factor in establishing the value of non-executive directors and members of audit committees’, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 1 (1): 14 – 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, 1960, Structure and process in modern societies, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E., 1992. Capital Choices: Changing the Way America Invests in Industry, U.S. Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. 1998. ‘Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology’. Annual Review of Sociology, 24:1-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A., and Sensenbrenner, J. 1993. ‘Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action’. American Journal of Sociology 98:1320-1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L.E. 1998. ‘Agents, stewards, and stakeholders’, Academy of Management Review, 23(1): 9-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R.: 1995. ‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital’, Journal of Democracy 6 (Jan), 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pye, A. J. and Camm, G., 2003, ‘Non-executive directors: Moving beyond the “one-size-fits-all” view’, Journal of General Management, 28 (3): 52-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pye, A. J. and Pettigrew, A. 2005, ‘Studying Board Context, Process and Dynamics: Some Challenges for the Future’, British Journal of Management, 16(1):27-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., McNulty, T. and Stiles, P. 2005, ‘Beyond Agency Conceptions of the Work of the Non-Executive Director: Creating Accountability in the Boardroom’, British Journal of Management, 16 (1), 5-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. 1997. ‘Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences’, Academy of Management Review, 22(4):887-910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. and Fouts, P. 1997. ‘A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability’, Academy of Management Journal, 40: 534-559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schollhammer, H. 1975. ‘Business-government relations in an international context: An assessment.’ In P. Boarman and H. Schollhammer (Eds.), Multinational corporations and governments: Business-government relations in an international context: 32-51. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. and J. W. Meyer: 1983, ‘The Organization of Societal Sectors: Hypothesis and Early Evidence’, in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), pp. 108–140.

  • Scott, S.G. and Lane, V.R. 2000. ‘A stakeholder approach to organizational identity’, Academy of Management Review, 25(1):43-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, P. 1982. ‘Corporate political activism’. California Management Review. 24(2): 32-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, H. and Harianto, F. 1989. ‘Management-board relationships, takeover risk, and the adoption of golden parachutes’, Academy of Management Journal, 32(1):7-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M. 1995. ‘Should Trees Have Managerial Standing? Toward Stakeholder Status for Non-Human Nature’, Journal of Business Ethics 14(3): 207–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiles, P. 2001. ‘The Impact of the Board on Strategy: An Empirical Examination’, Journal of Management Studies, 38 (3): 627-650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiles, P., and Taylor, B., 1996. ‘The strategic role of the board’ Corporate Governance, An International Review, 4(1): 3-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, E. Z. and M. B. Curtis: 2010, ‘An Examination of the Layers of Workplace Influences in Ethical Judgments: Whistleblowing Likelihood and Perseverance in Public Accounting’, Journal of Business Ethics 93, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson J.K., Hood J.N. (1993) ‘The Practice of Corporate social Performance in Minority- Versus Nonminoirty-Owned Small Businesses’. Journal of Business Ethics 12, 197-206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tollison, R. D. 1982, Rent Seeking: A Survey, Kyklos, 35(3): 575-602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K. and Weaver, G.R. 1999. ‘The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists-not convergent theory’, Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 222-227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tricker, R. I. 1994. International Corporate Governance, Singapore: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Useem, M. 1983: The inner circle: Large corporations and business politics in the U.S. and UK. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. 1996. ‘The study of business and politics’. California Management Review, 38: 146-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker G, Kogut B., Shan W. (1997) Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science 8: 109-125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. and Dewhirst, H. D.: 1992. Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation, Journal of Business Ethics, 11:115-123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidenbaum, M.: 1980. Public policy: No longer a spectator sport for business, Journal of Business Strategy, 3(4): 46-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J.D., and E. J. Zajac: 1998. ‘The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reform and shareholder reactions’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 127-153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. 1986. Strategic uses of public policy. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, D.G., P. Edwards, and F. Birkin: 1996. ‘Organizational Legitimacy and Stakeholder Information Provision’, British Journal of Management 7, 329-347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoffie, D. 1987. ‘Corporate strategy for political action: A rational model’. In A. Marcus, A. Kaufman, and D. Beam (Eds.), Business strategy and public policy: 92-111. New York: Quorum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., and J. A. Pearce: 1989. ‘Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model’, Journal of Management, 15(2),291-344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Marketing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

    Humphry Hung

Authors
  1. Humphry Hung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Humphry Hung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hung, H. Directors’ Roles in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Stakeholder Perspective. J Bus Ethics 103, 385–402 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0870-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0870-5

Key words

Search

Navigation