Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice

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

Abstract

Stakeholder theory has gained currency in the business and society literature in recent years in light of its practicality from the perspective of managers and scholars. In accounting for the recent ascendancy of stakeholder theory, this article presents an overview of two traditional conceptualizations of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Carroll: 1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, The Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497–505 and Wood: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, The Academy of Management Review 16(4), 691–717), highlighting their predominant inclination toward providing static taxonomic CSR descriptions. The article then makes the case for a stakeholder approach to CSR, reviewing its rationale and outlining how it has been integrated into recent empirical studies. In light of this review, the article adopts a stakeholder framework – the Ethical Performance Scorecard (EPS) proposed by Spiller (2000, ‘Ethical Business and Investment: A Model For Business and Society’, Journal of Business Ethics 27, 149–160) – to examine the CSR approach of a sample of Lebanese and Syrian firms with an interest in CSR and test relevant hypotheses derived from the CSR/stakeholder literature. The findings are analyzed and implications drawn regarding the usefulness of a stakeholder approach to CSR.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abreu R., David F., Crowther D. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility in Portugal Empirical Evidence of Corporate Behavior. Corporate Governance 5(5):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, E., A. Carroll and Hatfield: 1983, ‘Instrument Development and Application in Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of management Proceedings (August) 369–373.

  • Brammer S., Millington A. (2003). The Effect of Stakeholder Preferences, Organizational Structure and Industry Type on Corporate Community Involvement. Journal of Business Ethics 45:213–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. and P. Cochran: 1991, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: Implications for Business and Society Theory and Research’, IABS Proceedings 449–467.

  • Brickson S. (2007). Organizational Identity Orientation: The Genesis of the Role of the Firm and Distinct Forms of Social Value. Academy of Management Review 32(3):864–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. The Academy of Management Review 4(4):497–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A. (1991). The Pyramid Of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons 34:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility. Business and Society 38(3):268–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A., Buchholtz A. (2003). Business and Society, Ethics and Stakeholders Management, 5th Edition. Thomson, Mason (Ohio)

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson M. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Review 20(1):92–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport K. (2000). Corporate Citizenship: A Stakeholder Approach for Defining Corporate Social Performance and Identifying Measures for Assessing It. Business & Society 20(2):210–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis K. (1960). Can Business Afford to Ignore Corporate Social Responsibilities?. California Management Review 2:70–76

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFillipi, R. J.: 1982, ‘Conceptual Framework and Strategies for Corporate Social Involvement Research’, in Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy (JAI Press, Connecticut).

  • De Madariaga G., Valor C. (2007). Stakeholders Management Systems: Empirical Insights from Relationship Marketing and Market Orientation. Journal of Business Ethics 71:425–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh J., Guay T. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy and NGO Activism in Europe and the US: An Institutional Stakeholder Perspective. Journal of Management Studies 43:47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T. (1982). Corporations and Morality. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T., Dunfee T. (1994). Towards a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Review 19:252–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster D., Jonker J. (2005). Stakeholder Relationships: The Dialogue of Engagement. Corporate Governance 5(5):51–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankental P. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility- A PR Invention. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6(1):18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick W. C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2. Business and Society 33(2):150–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Publishing, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E., Reed L. (1983). Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. California Management Review 15(3):88–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E., Philips R. (2002). Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(3):331–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath J. (2006). Does Primary Stakeholder Management Positively Affect the Bottom Line?. Management Decision 44(9):1106–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga E., Mele D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics 53:51–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins D. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Balancing Tomorrow’s Sustainability And Today’s Profitability. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill T. (2004). Corporate Citizenship: The Case for a New Corporate Governance Model. Business and Society Review 109(3):339–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali D., Mirshak R. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: Theory and Practice in A Developing Country Context. Journal of Business Ethics 72: 243–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones M. (1983). An Integrating Framework for Research in Business and Society: A Step Toward the Elusive Paradigm. Academy of Management Review 8:559–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonker J., Foster D. (2002). Stakeholder Excellence: Framing the Evolution and Complexity of a Stakeholder Perspective of the Firm. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9:187–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakabase N., Rozuel C., Lee-Davies L. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Approach: A Conceptual Review. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 1(4):277–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox S., Maklan S., French P. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Exploring Stakeholder Relationships and Program Reporting Across Leading FTSE Companies. Journal of Business Ethics 61:7–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L.: 1987, ‘Social Responsibility and Economic Performance: An Empirical Examination of Corporate Profiles’, Un-published PhD Dissertation, US International University, San Diego.

  • Longo M., Mura M., Bonoli A. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Performance: The Case of Italian SMEs. Corporate Governance 5(4):28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan I., Ferrell O., Ferrell L. (2005). A Stakeholder Model for Implementing Social Responsibility in Marketing. European Journal of Marketing 29(9/10):956–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis J., Walsh J. (2003). Misery Loves Companies: Revisiting Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48:268–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten D., Crane A., Chapple W. (2003). Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics 45:109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehan J., Meehan K., Richards A. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: The 3C-SR Model. International Journal of Social Economics 33(5/6):386–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell K., Agle R., Wood D. (1997). Towards a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4):853–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B., S. Bell and G. Whitwell: 2004, ‘Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Toward An Actionable Tool for The Management of Stakeholders’, The Academy of Management Conference, 2004, Best Paper Proceedings (New Orleans).

  • Norman W., MacDonald C. (2004). Getting to the Bottom of Triple Bottom Line. Business Ethics Quarterly 14(2):243–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak M. (1996). Business a Calling: Work and the Examined Life. The Free Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review 16(1): 145–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papasolomou-Doukakis I., Krambia-Kapardis M., Katsioloudes M. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: The Way Forward? Maybe Not!. European Business Review 17(3):263–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R., Freeman E., Wicks C. (2003). What Stakeholder Theory Is Not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4):479–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Post J. (1978). Corporate Behavior and Change. Reston Publishing Company, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  • Post E., Preston E., Sachs S. (2002). Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View. California Management Review 45(1):6–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratima B. (2002). The Corporate Challenges of Sustainable Development. Academy of Management Executive 16(2):122–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston L., Post J. (1975). Private Management and Public Policy. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard J., Betz M., O’Connell L. (1997). The Proactive Corporation: Its Nature and Causes. Journal of Business Ethics 16:1001–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons J. (2004). Managing in the Post-Managerialist Era: Towards Socially Responsible Corporate Governance. Management Decision 32(3/4): 601–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snider J., Hill R., Martin D. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century: A View from the World’s Most Successful Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 48:175–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon R. C. (1994). The New World of Business: Ethics and Free Enterprise in the Global Nineties. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiller R. (2000). Ethical Business and Investment: A Model for Business and Society. Journal of Business Ethics 27:149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlaner L., van Goor-Balk A., Masurel E. (2004). Family Business and Corporate Social Responsibility in a Sample of Dutch Firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 11(2):186–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos J., Achterkamp M. (2006). Stakeholder Identification in Innovation Projects: Going Beyond Classification. European Journal of Innovation Management 9(2):161–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Votaw, D.: 1973, ‘Genius Becomes Rare’, in D. Votaw and S. Sethi (eds.), The Corporate Dilemma: Traditional Values Vs. Contemporary Problems (Prentice Hall).

  • Waddock S. (2004). Parallel Universes: Companies, Academics and the Progress of Corporate Citizenship. Business and Society Review 109(1):5–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace S. (2003). Value Maximization and Stakeholder Theory: Compatible or Not? Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 15(3):120–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windsor D. (2001). The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 9(3):225–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood D. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management Review 16(4):691–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Olayan School of Business - Management, American University of Beirut, Bliss Street, Beirut, 11-0236, Lebanon

    Dima Jamali

Authors
  1. Dima Jamali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dima Jamali.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jamali, D. A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice. J Bus Ethics 82, 213–231 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9572-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9572-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation