Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework

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

Abstract

As concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) continue to evolve, the predicament facing CSR managers when attempting to balance the differing interests of various stakeholders remains a persistent management challenge. A review of the extensive literature in this field reveals that the conceptualisation of corporate approaches to responsible stakeholder management remains underdeveloped. In particular, CSR practices within the specific context of the pharmaceutical industry, a sector which particularly dramatically depicts the stakeholder management dilemmas faced by business managers, has been under-researched. To address this gap, this paper utilises qualitative, exploratory data, obtained via multiple research methods, to investigate the CSR practices of major pharmaceutical companies in the UK and Germany. The data are employed to critically re-examine and revise a previously published explanatory framework which identifies the management steps involved in CSR stakeholder engagement. The resulting revised explanatory framework is the main contribution of this paper. By abstracting those factors which influence CSR practice, it provides an analytical tool which is designed to be of practical use for business decision-makers when managing their stakeholder engagement activities. Given that the research addresses values and ideals and prescribes practical recommendations for practitioners, it is essentially applied and normative in nature. Ultimately, the framework proposes a set of steps for developing CSR strategies which could help CSR professionals to make a ‘mindset transition’ from a narrower ‘traditional’ approach to CSR to a more innovative way of thinking.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Please note that the conceptual framework presented in this paper was refigured based on evidence which was obtained in separate research (O’Riordan 2010). If required, that research is available upon specific request.

  2. Please note that more detailed findings with respect to this research can be found if required in a separate paper by O’Riordan and Fairbrass (2012) entitled ‘Corporate Approaches to CSR Stakeholder Engagement in the Pharmaceutical Industry’.

  3. Here the term ‘company’ is defined to embrace stakeholder groups including shareholders i.e. the owners and/or the employees of the company but not their families who are understood to belong to the stakeholder group: society/community.

  4. (i.e. first analysing the context, second making choices based on an enlightened mind-set on the innovative opportunities that exist for business in line with the new business model concept described in greater detail above, and third calculating the return via a collaborative relationship approach which aims to achieve the optimum outcome for the partnership as opposed to individual interests in that partnership).

  5. For clarification, rather than implying that that companies ‘evolve’ from one group to another in this illustration, the intention instead is to suggest that these type of responses to the CSR ‘call’ simply exist within firms. As a result, various subsidiaries or projects within the same company could actually ‘co-exist’ at different levels of evolutionary development. Here committed leadership is required to stimulate accountable practice.

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albareda, L., Lozano, J. M., Tencati, A., Midttun, A., & Perrini, F. (2008). The changing role of governments in corporate social responsibility: Drivers and responses. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(4), 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2007). Retrieved April, 2007, from www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de.

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A. K., & Carroll, A. B. (2009) Business and society. 7th (international student) edn. Canada: South Western Cengage Learning.

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: Changing relationships between companies and NGOs. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 35–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: The evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2009). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (7th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1999). Principles of stakeholder management. The Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics University of Toronto, Canada. Cited in A. B. Carroll & A. K. Buchholtz (2009) Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (7th ed., p. 111). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning Inc.

  • Company 1. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 3. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 4. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 5. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 7. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 8. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 10. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 11. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 12. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 13. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 14. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 15. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 16. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Company 17. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan, 2010).

  • Company 18. (2008). Evidence from qualitative interviews which has been rendered anonymous for confidentiality purposes. (Source O’Riordan 2010).

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2007). Business ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSR Asia. (2012, Week 47, 21 November 2012). Lessons in stakeholder engagement by Gabriel Chong (Vol. 8). Retrieved December, 2012, from www.csr-asia.com.

  • CSR Asia. (2013). Stakeholder engagement and community investment and development. Retrieved April, 2013, from http://www.csr-asia.com/service.php#2.

  • CSR Europe. (2012). Proactive stakeholder engagement from the European Alliance for CSR. Retrieved December, 2012, from http://www.csreurope.org/pages/en/stakeholderengagement.html.

  • Daniels, J., & Radebaugh, L. (2001). International business: Environments and operations (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deresky, H. (2000). International management: Managing across boarders and cultures (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, B., & O’Toole, T. (2007). Strategic market relationships: From strategy to implementation (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esteban, D. (2008). Strengthening corporate social responsibility in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Medical Marketing: Device, Diagnostic and Pharmaceutical Marketing, 8(1), 77–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethical Corp. (2009). If Roche sneezes the pharmaceutical industry catches a cold. Retrieved September, 2009, from www.ethicalcorp.com.

  • Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrick, J., & Ferrell, L. (2010). Business ethics: Ethical decision-making and cases. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, A. (2009). Is there no prescription? Reputation in the pharmaceutical industry. In J. Klewes & R. Wreschniok (Eds.), Reputation capital (pp. 347–359). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. (Ed.). (1990). Understanding business markets—Interaction, relationships and networks. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, C., & Zarkada-Fraser, A. (2003). Investigating the effectiveness of managers through an analysis of stakeholder perceptions. Journal of Management Development, 22(9), 762–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Martin, K., & Parmar, B. (2007). ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’ Journal of Business Ethics 74, 303–14. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970, September 13) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine. New York: The New York Times Company.

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fürst, M., & Wieland, J. (2004). ‚WerteManagementSysteme in der Praxis: Erfahrungen und Ausblicke’ pp. 349–391. Handbuch Werte Management. Hamburg: Murmann Verlag GmbH.

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gini, A. (1997). Moral leadership: An overview. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(3), 323–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Psychology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (2006). Contemporary strategy analysis. Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK Disclosure. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77. University Press.

  • Greenfield, W. M. (2004, January–February). In the name of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 47/1, 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M., & van Buren, H. J. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in the organisation–stakeholder relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habisch, A., & Jonker, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R. (2009). The ethical rational of business for the poor—Integrating the concepts bottom of the pyramid sustainable development and corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 313–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H. (Ed.). (1982). International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods: An interaction approach. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1994). The tragedy of the unmanaged commons. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9(5), 199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. N. (2007). In search of sustainable enterprise. Value News Network. Retrieved from www.policyinnovations.org.

  • Hawken, P. (1993). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York: Collins Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heal, G. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: An economic and financial framework. The Geneva Papers, 30, 387–409. Columbia Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, G. R. (2007). Strategic management an integrated approach (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, C., & Fieseler, C. (2010). Implementing stakeholder engagement: A case study from the pharmaceutical industry. In Paper published at the 10th Conference of the European Academy of Management, Rome.

  • Homann, K., & Lütge, C. (2005). Einführung in die Wirtschaftsethik. Münster: Lit-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • IBLF. (2010a). Integrating CSR into mainstream business practice. International Business Leaders Forum. TPI Working Paper No. 2/2010 by Refal Serafin. Retrieved December, 2010, from www.thepartneringinitiatives.org.

  • IBLF. (2010b). Our approach: Leadership and collaboration. Retrieved December, 2010, from www.IBLF.org.

  • ISO. (2010). Guidance on social responsibility. International Standard ISO/DIS 26000. Geneva: International Organisation for Standardisation.

  • Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J. (2012). New business models. Working Paper. Nijmegen: Nijmegen School of Management, Raboud University.

  • Jonker, J., & De Witte, M. (2006). Conclusion: The real challenges of organising and implementing CSR. In J. Jonker & M. De Witte (Eds.), The challenge of organising and implementing corporate social responsibility (pp. 237–247). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., Brady, M., Goodman, M., & Hansen, T. (2009). Marketing management (12th ed.). London: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P. (1990) ‘What leaders really do’ Harvard Business Review 68 (May-June), 103-11.

  • Küpper, H. U. (2011) Unternehmensethik: Hintergründe, Konzepte und Anwendungsbereiche (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: Schäfer Poeschel.

  • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. D. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. K. (1994). The implications of organisational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. In Paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, NY.

  • Lindgreen, A, & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7 (Special Issue).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Johnston, W. J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation of U.S. organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(Suppl. 2), 303–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, R. (2010). Proposing a corporate sustainability typology. Sustainability Research Institute (SRI) Paper. School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds. ISNN 1753-1330.

  • Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring Corporate Citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallen, B. (2012). Corporate social responsibility news and resources. Retrieved December, 2012, from http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/enron.html.

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2008). Thinking of the organization as a system: The role of managerial perceptions in developing a corporate social responsibility strategic agenda. Systems Research and Behavioral Science Special Issue: Systems Thinking and Corporate Social Responsibility, 25(3), 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, S., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (2007). The debate over corporate responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. P., Munilla, L. S., & Covin, J. G. (2002). The constant gardener revisited: The effect of social blackmail on the marketing concept, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(3), 287–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (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 

  • Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus non financial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38, 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noland, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. A. Lindgreen & V. Swaen (Guest Editors) International Journal of Management Reviews: Corporate social responsibility, 12(1), 39–49 (Special Issue).

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 16(4), 523–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L. (2006). CSR and stakeholder dialogue: Theory, concepts, and models for the pharmaceutical industry. MRES Dissertation, University of Bradford, Bradford.

  • O’Riordan, L. (2010). Perspectives on corporate social responsibility (CSR): Corporate approaches to stakeholder engagement in the pharmaceutical industry in the UK and Germany. PhD Thesis, Bradford University School of Management, Bradford.

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2006). CSR: Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. In Paper presented at a Corporate Responsibility Research Conference, 4–5 September, 2006. Ireland: Trinity College Dublin.

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). CSR—Theories, models and concepts in stakeholder dialogue—A model for decision-makers in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 754–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2012a). Managing CSR stakeholder engagement: A new conceptual framework. In Paper presented at the 11th World Congress of Congress of the International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management (IFSAM), 26–29 June, 2012. Ireland: University of Limerick.

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2012b). Corporate approaches to CSR stakeholder engagement in the pharmaceutical industry. In Paper presented at the 11th World Congress of Congress of the International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management (IFSAM), 26–29 June, 2012. Ireland: University of Limerick.

  • Obama, B. (2007). Dreams from my father. Edinburgh: Canongate Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) public policy and voluntary initiatives: What roles have governments played?. Working Papers on International Investment 2001/4. Brussels.

  • Peters, A., & Roess, D. (2010). The role of governments in promoting corporate responsibility and private sector engagement in development. Gutersloh: UN Global Compact and Bertelsmann Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organisations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a model of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Freemann, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. (2005). Ultimate therapy. Harvard International Review, 27(1), 44–49, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, C. (2004). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roddick, A. (2000). Business as unusual. London: Thorsons Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business and Society, 47(2), 148–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secchi, D. (2007). Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 347–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silberhorn, D., & Warren, R. C. (2007). Defining corporate social responsibility: A view from big companies in Germany and the UK. European Business Review, 19(5), 352–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Retrieved from www.adam.smith.org.

  • Spinello, R. A. (1992). Ethics, pricing and the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 617–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (1999). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts’. California Management Review, 41(2), 131–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2004). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business (3rd edn.). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

  • UN Global Compact. (1999). United Nations Global Compact. Retrieved from www.unglobalcompact.org.

  • Visser, W. (2011). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2002). Leading corporate citizens. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. R. (2006) Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung als Unternehmensbild? (Social responsibility as a company image). In S. Hilger (Ed.), Kapital and moral. Cologne: Köln (Böhlau).

  • Wagner, M. (2009). Innovation and competitive advantages from the integration of strategic aspects with social and environmental Management in European firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(5), 291–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD. (2002). The business case for sustainable development: Making a difference towards the Johannesburg Summit 2002 and beyond. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1917). Der Sinn der »Wertfreiheit« der soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften. In Collected papers on Wissenschaftslehre, Tübingen 1988 (first published in 1922, pp. 489–540).

  • Weber, M. (1988). Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. In Collected papers on Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: Johannes Winckelmann.

  • Welford, R. (1995). Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development: The corporate challenge for the 21st century. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R., et al. (2008). Reporting on community impacts—A survey conducted by the global reporting initiative. The University of Hong Kong, and CSR Asia. GRI Report.

  • Zinkhan, G. M., & Balazsb, A. L. (2004). A stakeholder-integrated approach to health care management. Journal of Business Research, 57(9), 984–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, University of Applied Sciences, Leimkugelstraße 6, 45141, Essen, Germany

    Linda O’Riordan

  2. School of Management, University of Bradford, Emm Lane, Bradford, BD9 4JL, UK

    Jenny Fairbrass

Authors
  1. Linda O’Riordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jenny Fairbrass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda O’Riordan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Riordan, L., Fairbrass, J. Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework. J Bus Ethics 125, 121–145 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1913-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1913-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation