Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 88, Issue 2, pp 381–393 | Cite as

“Society is Out There, Organisation is in Here”: On the Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Held by Different Managerial Groups

  • James A. H. S. HineEmail author
  • Lutz Preuss
Article

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an increasingly significant managerial concept, yet the manager as an agent of corporate bureaucracy has been substantially missing from both the analytical and conceptual literature dealing with CSR. This article, which is both interpretative in nature and specific in reference to the U.K. cultural context, represents an attempt at addressing this lacuna by utilising qualitative data to explore the perceptions of managers working in corporations with developed CSR programmes. Exploring managerial perceptions of motives for CSR initiatives, methods of stakeholder engagement, organisational integration of CSR and its impact on managerial work, this study concludes that an instrumental approach dominates, which indicates an external–internal organisational paradox in the design and execution of CSR initiatives.

Keywords

bureaucratic organisation business ethics corporate ethos corporate social responsibility managerial practices stakeholders 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott, W.F., & Monsen, J.R. (1979). On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-Reported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Social Involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515. doi: 10.2307/255740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, G.J., & Bucholz, R.A. (1978). Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21(3), 479–486. doi: 10.2307/255728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvesson, M., Willmott, H.: 1992, “Critical Theory and Management Studies. In M. Alvesson and H. Willmott (eds.), Critical Management Studies. London, Sage, 1–20Google Scholar
  4. Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B., & Hatfield, J.D. (1985). An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–443. doi: 10.2307/256210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bacharach, S.B., & Lawler, E.J. 1980, Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco, Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakan, J. 2005, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, 2nd. Edition. London, ConstableGoogle Scholar
  7. Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2003). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauman, Z. 1993, Postmodern Ethics. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  9. Beck, U.: 1999, World Risk Society (Polity Press, Cambridge)Google Scholar
  10. Beynon, H., Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J., & Ward, K. 2002, Managing Employment Change: The New Realities of Work. New York, OUPGoogle Scholar
  11. Bird, F. B. and J. A. Waters: 1989, ‹The Moral Muteness of Managers’, California Management Review 32(1), 73–88Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295. doi: 10.1177/000765039903800303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crane, A. (2000). Corporate greening as amoralization. Organization Studies, 21(4), 673–696. doi: 10.1177/0170840600214001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dando, N., & Swift, T. (2003). Transparency and assurance: Minding the credibility gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 195–200. doi: 10.1023/A:1023351816790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. doi: 10.2307/258887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrell, D., & Peterson, J.C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 403–412. doi: 10.2307/257332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Floyd, S.W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management’s strategic influence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465–485. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, R.E. 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, PitmanGoogle Scholar
  19. French, Peter A. (1995), Corporate Ethics. Harcourt Brace College Publishers: Fort Worth TXGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedman, M.: 1970, ‹The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, 13 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  21. Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver, A., & Williams, K. 2006, Financialization and Strategy: Narrative and Numbers. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glaser, B.G. 1992, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing. Mill Valley Ca., Sociology PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray, R. (2006). Social, Environmental and Sustainability Reporting and Organisational Value Creation? Whose Value? Whose Creation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819. doi: 10.1108/09513570610709872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Husted, B.W. (2003). Corporate governance choices for corporate social responsibility: to contribute, collaborate or internalise? Long Range Planning, 36(5), 481–498. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(03)00115-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Husted, B.W., & de Jesus Salazar, J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00583.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackall, R. 1988, The Moral Maze: The World of Corporate Managers. New York, OUPGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, P., & Smith, K. (1999). Contextualising Business Ethics: Anomie and Social Life. Human Relations, 52(11), 1351–1375Google Scholar
  29. Jones, T.M. (1995). Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437. doi: 10.2307/258852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kanter, R.M. (2004). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review, 83, 150–161Google Scholar
  31. Kell, G. (2003). The global compact: Origins, operations, progress, challenges. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 11(Autumn), 35–49Google Scholar
  32. King, A.: 2000, ‹Organizational Response to Environmental Regulation: Punctuated Change or Autogenesis?’, Business Strategy and the Environment 9(4), 224–238. doi:10.1002/1099-0836(200007/08)9:4< 224::AID-BSE249>3.0.CO;2-XGoogle Scholar
  33. 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(1), 115–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00585.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacIntyre, A. 1985, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd. Edition. London, DuckworthGoogle Scholar
  35. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Corporate social responsibility education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), 323–337. doi: 10.1007/s10551-004-1822-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D.S. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127. doi: 10.2307/259398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mellahi, K., & Wood, G. (2003). The role and potential of stakeholders in ‹hollow participation’: Conventional stakeholder theory and institutionalist alternatives. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 183–202. doi: 10.1111/1467-8594.00160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merton, R.K. 1949, Social Theory and Social Structure. Chicago, Free PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (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. doi: 10.2307/259247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moore, G. (1999). Tinged Shareholder Theory: or what’s so special about stakeholders? Business Ethics. A European Review 8(2), 117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., & Rynes, S.L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. doi: 10.1177/0170840603024003910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Sullivan, M. 2000, Contests for Corporate Control: Corporate Governance and Economic Performance in the US and Germany. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41Google Scholar
  44. Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E., & Wicks, A.C. (2003). What Stakeholder Theory is Not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502Google Scholar
  45. Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68Google Scholar
  46. Reis, E.P. (2004). The Lasting Marriage Between Nation and State Despite Globalization. International Political Science Review, 25(3), 251–257. doi: 10.1177/0192512104043014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roberts, J. (2001). Corporate Governance and the Ethics of Narcissus. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 109–127. doi: 10.2307/3857872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A Brand New Brand of Social of Corporate Performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 397–418. doi: 10.1177/000765030003900404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sternberg, E. (1997). The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5(1), 3–10. doi: 10.1111/1467-8683.00034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stoney & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the Conceptual Terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603–626. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ten Bos, R. and H. Willmott: 2001, ‹Towards a Post-Dualistic Business Ethics: Interweaving Reason and Emotion in Working Life’, Journal of Management Studies 38(6), 769–793Google Scholar
  52. Velasquez, M. (2003). Debunking Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 531–532Google Scholar
  53. Vogel, D. (2005). Is there a market for virtue?: The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. California Management Review, 47(4), 19–45Google Scholar
  54. Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, ‹The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303–319Google Scholar
  55. Weaver, G.R., Trevino, L.K., & Cochran, P.L. (1999a). Corporate Ethics Programs as Control Systems: Influences of Executive Commitment and Environmental Factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 41–57. doi: 10.2307/256873 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weaver, G.R., Trevino, L.K., & Cochran, P.L. (1999b). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552. doi: 10.2307/256975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Werhane, P.H. 1985, Persons, Rights, and Corporations. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  58. Williams, K. (2000). From Shareholder Value to Present-day Capitalism. Economy and Society, 29(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1080/030851400360532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wills, A. (2003). The role of the Global Reporting Initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 233–237. doi: 10.1023/A:1022958618391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson, G. (2000). Business, State, and Community: ‹Responsible Risk Takers’, New Labour, and the Governance of Corporate Business. Journal of Law and Society, 27(1), 151–177. doi: 10.1111/1467-6478.00150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Key Approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00584.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wright, P. and S. P. Ferris: 1997, ‹Agency Conflict and Corporate Strategy: The Effect of Divestment on Corporate Value’, Strategic Management Journal 18(1), 77–83. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199701)18:1<77::AID-SMJ810>3.0.CO;2-RGoogle Scholar
  63. Wright Mills, C. 1956, White Collar: The American Middle Classes. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghU.K.
  2. 2.Royal Holloway CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonU.K.

Personalised recommendations