Skip to main content

United States of America: Internal Commitments and External Pressures

  • Chapter
Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility

With the varied definitions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) we examine the motivation for firms' CSR activities, how firms credibly demonstrate CSR, and firms' CSR reporting. These three topics, i.e., why firms participate, how firms participate, and CSR reporting rubrics, help describe and explain the core question of this chapter: what is the practice of CSR in the United States (US)? We argue that the practice of CSR in the US is evolving and accelerating at an uneven pace across industries and within firms because of differences in beliefs in CSR, leadership, employee pressures, government demands, and community input.

This chapter suggests examining specific stakeholder relations and how firms co-create value that leads to a more nuanced view of CSR. The practice of CSR in the US continues to be a matter of choice within a market-driven economy. This freedom to choose underlies many CSR activities. CSR for consumers may include better, safer, and quality products. For employees, CSR is about pride, retention, and being an employer of choice. CSR is a differentiator from rival firms—especially in fiercely competitive markets. For policy makers, CSR is about building trust, credibility, and repetitive access. For suppliers, CSR is about being the partner of choice. And for communities, CSR is about pride, sponsorships, and inclusion. CSR in U.S. firms is the sum of these stakeholder systems plus the innovative creativity resulting in new product/markets to serve shifting social demands.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Allen, G. 2007. Corporate Community Investment in Australia, Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Corporate Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, Michael L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, Robert J., Bartunek, Jean, Fort, Timothy L., and Zald, Meyer. 2007. Corporations as social change agents: Individual, interpersonal, institutional, and environmental dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 788–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Petroleum. 2006. ‘BP has come out on top in a new CERES report on how 100 leading companies are addressing the growing financial risks and opportunities from climate change.’ www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId = 9006198&contentId = 7016310, March 21, 2006.

  • Carroll, Archie B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3): 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, Max B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cogan, David G. 2006. Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection. Washington, DC: Investor Responsibility Reporting Center, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSR wire. 2007. Calvert Seeks Progress Through Shareholder Activism, January 11. www.csrwire.com/PressRelease.php?id = 7233.

  • Day, Kathleen. 2006. Study Finds ‘Extensive’ Fraud at Fannie Mae: Bonuses Allegedly Drove the Scheme. Washington Post, May 24, 2006; Page A01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Marc J., & Schnietz, Karen E. 2002. Measuring the cost of environmental and labor protests to globalization: An event study of the failed 1999 Seattle WTO talks. International Trade Journal, 15: 129–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, Charles & Shanley, Marc. 1990. What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, Timothy L. 2007. The corporate contribution to one planet living in global peace and security: Introduction. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Issue 26: 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, William C. 2006. Corporation, Be Good! The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility. Dog Ear Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, Jeffrey. 1997. Socially irresponsible and illegal behavior and shareholder wealth: A meta-analysis of event studies. Business & Society, 36(3): 221–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 1970. Social responsibility of business. The New York Times Magazine. September 13, 33: 122–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • GAO. 2005. Globalization: Numerous Federal Activities Complement U.S. Business's Global corporate Social Responsibility Efforts. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Organization Report #: GAO-05-744 Global CSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, Paul C. 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 777–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, David and Hodges, Adrian. 2004. Corporate Social Opportunity: Seven Steps to make Corporate Social Responsibility work for your business. London: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greening, Daniel W. and Turban, D. B. 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3): 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Jennifer J. & Mahon, John F. 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1): 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, S., Gabel, Joan T. A., & Williams, David W. 2007. Connecting Two Faces of CSR: Does Employee Volunteerism Improve Compliance Behavior? Presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meetings, Social Issues in Management Division, August 2007, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Herald Tribune. 2007. Letter from Washington: As U.S. rich-poor gap grows, so does public outcry. February 18, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. 2001. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3): 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, David A. 2007. Corporate Volunteer Programs & Employee Responses: How Serving the Community Also Serves the Company. Presented at the Annual Academy ofManagement Meetings, Social Issues in Management Division, August 2007, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, Ans and Hoffmann, Volker 2007. Business, climate change and emissions trading: Taking stock and looking ahead. European Management Journal, 25(6): 411–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & van Tulder, R. 2002. The effectiveness of self-regulation: Corporate codes of conduct and child labour. European Management Journal, 20(3): 260–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. 2007. What is the relation between company profits, company reputation and corporate giving? Robert P. Maxton Lecture at the George Washington University School of Business, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, Anne T. 2002. The drivers of stakeholder engagement: Reflections on the case of Royal Dutch/Shell. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 6: 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, David L., & Kolk, Ans 2002. Strategic responses to global climate change: Conflicting pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business and Politics, 4(3): 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M. and Wood, D. J. 2005. Global Business citizenship and voluntary codes of ethical conduct. Journal of Business Ethics 59: 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. 2002. Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 155–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, Joshua D. and Walsh, James P. 2001. People and Profits? The Search for a Link Between a Company's Social and Financial Performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, Marc, Schmidt, F. L., and Rynes, Sara. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3): 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Michael E. & Kramer, Marc R. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, 80(12, December): 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Michael E. & Kramer, Marc R. 2006. Strategy & Society: The link between competitive strategy and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84 (12, December): 78– 92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. 2005. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason. 2005. Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business: A Reason debate featuring Milton Friedman, Whole Foods' John Mackey, and Cypress Semiconductor's T.J. Rodgers, October 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. and Moldoveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 204–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnietz, Karen. E. and Epstein, Marc. J. 2003. The Crisis Value of a Rreputation for Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from the 1999 Seattle WTO Meeting. Presented at the SixthAnnual International Conference on Corporate Reputation, Boston, MA, May 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. 1994. Changing institutional rules: The evolution of corporate philanthropy, 1883– 1953. Business & Society, 33(3): 236–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SIRAN. 2006. Social Investment Research Analysts Network Report 2006http://www.siran.org/pdfs/csrreportingpr2006.pdf

  • Smith, C. 1994. The new corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, (May/June), 72(3): 105–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Investment Forum. 2006. 2005 Report on Socially Responsible Investment Trends in the United States: Ten year Review. Washington, DC: Social Investment Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szwajkowski, Eugene and Raymond E. Figlewicz. 1999. Evaluating corporate performance: A comparison of the fortune reputation survey and the Socrates social dating database. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11: 137–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. 2005. “The good company: Companies today are exhorted to be ‘socially responsible’. What, exactly, does this mean?” January 22, page 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S.A. 2006. Leading Corporate Citizens: Vision, Values, Value Added, 2nd edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. D., Trevino, L. K. and Cochran, P. L. 1999. Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A. and Mackey, A. 2002. A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation, Business & Society, 41(4), 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Donna J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, Simon. 2004. The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12 December): 125.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Griffin, J.J., Vivari, B. (2009). United States of America: Internal Commitments and External Pressures. In: Idowu, S.O., Filho, W.L. (eds) Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68815-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics