Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 90, Issue 3, pp 311–329 | Cite as

“Managing” Corporate Community Involvement

  • Judith M. van der Voort
  • Katherina Glac
  • Lucas C.P.M. Meijs


In academic research, many attempts have been undertaken to legitimize corporate community involvement by showing a business case for it. However, much less attention has been devoted to building understanding about the actual dynamics and challenges of managing CCI in the business context. As an alternative to existing predominantly static and top-down approaches, this paper introduces a social movement framework for analyzing CCI management. Based on the analysis of qualitative case study data, we argue that the active role of employees pressuring for CCI policies and practices, as well as the organization audience responses to their efforts, are at the core of the challenges involved in managing CCI. These challenges also pose limits to how far CCI can be extended to a “business as usual” activity.


corporate community involvement corporate social responsibility employee volunteering social movement framing mobilization double-edged effect qualitative research case study research 



Corporate community involve ment


Corporate social responsibility


Social movement organization


Human resource management


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel: 2008, Giving USA (AAFRC, New York, NY).Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in US business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 548–570. doi: 10.2307/1556355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.Google Scholar
  4. Bartel, C. A. (2001). ‹Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members’ organizational identity and identification’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 379–413. doi: 10.2307/3094869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benford, R. D., & Hunt, S. A. (1992). Dramaturgy and social movements: The social construction and communication of power. Sociological Inquiry, 62(1), 36–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1992.tb00182.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowen, F. (2007). Corporate social strategy: Competing views from two theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 97–113. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9240-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2003). The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure, and industry type on corporate community involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 213–226. doi: 10.1023/A:1024151528646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2004). Stakeholder pressure, organizational size, and the allocation of departmental responsibility for the management of corporate charitable giving. Business & Society, 43(3), 268–294. doi: 10.1177/0007650304267536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources: The mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business & Society, 38(2), 167–187. doi: 10.1177/000765039903800203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, L., Logsdon, J. M., Mitchell, W., Reiner, M., & Vogel, D. (1986). Corporate community involvement in the San Francisco Bay Area. California Management Review, 28(3), 122–141.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. L. 2005. ‹Where do we stand? Common mechanisms in organizations and social movements research’, in G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, R. W. Scott and M. N. Zald (eds.), Social movements and organization theory, (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY), pp. 41–68.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505. doi: 10.2307/257850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295. doi: 10.1177/000765039903800303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carroll, A. B. 2006. ‹Corporate social responsibility: A historical perspective’, in M. J. Epstein and K. O. Hanson (eds.), The Accountable Corporation, Vol. 3 (Praeger, Westport, CT), pp. 3-30.Google Scholar
  17. Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach to corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 345–359. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9257-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clemens, E. S. and D. C. Minkoff: 2004, ‹Beyond the Iron Law: Rethinking the Place of Organizations in Social Movement Research’, in D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule and H. Kriesi (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, (Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA), pp. 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy: 2008. ‹Giving in Numbers’, Accessed January 2009.
  20. Creed, W. E. D., Scully, M. A., & Austin, J. R. (2002). Clothes make the person? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and the social construction of identity. Organization Science, 13(5), 475–496. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.5.475.7814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, G. F., & McAdam, D. (2000). Corporations, classes, and social movements after managerialism. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 193–236. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22006-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.Google Scholar
  23. Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 397–428. doi: 10.2307/258903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. doi: 10.1177/0092070305284976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flick, U. 2002. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. (Sage, London).Google Scholar
  26. Gamson, W. A. 2004. ‹Bystanders, public opinion, and the media’, in D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule and H. Kriesi (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA), pp. 242-261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerhards, J. (1995). Framing dimensions and framing strategies: Contrasting ideal-type and real-type frames. Social Sciences Information Information Sur les Sciences Sociales, 34(2), 225–248. doi: 10.1177/053901895034002003.Google Scholar
  28. Godfrey, P. C., & Hatch, N. W. (2007). Researching corporate social responsibility: An agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1), 87–98. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9080-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Griffin, J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1), 5–31. doi: 10.1177/000765039703600102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hemphill, T. A. (1999). Corporate governance, strategic philanthropy, and public policy. Business Horizons, 32(13), 57–62. doi: 10.1016/S0007-6813(99)80022-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W. (2002). The next wave of corporate community involvement: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2), 110–125.Google Scholar
  32. Howard-Grenville, J. A., & Hoffman, A. J. (2003). The importance of cultural framing to the success of social initiatives in business. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 70–84.Google Scholar
  33. Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2000). Is it ethical to use ethics as strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1/2), 21–31. doi: 10.1023/A:1006422704548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keim, G. D. (1978). Corporate social responsibility: An assessment of the enlightened self-interest model. Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 32–40. doi: 10.2307/257574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klandermans, B. 1988. ‹The formation and mobilization of consensus’, in B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi and S. Tarrow (eds.), From structure to action: Comparing social movement research across cultures, Vol. 1, (JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT), pp. 173-196.Google Scholar
  36. Klandermans, B. 1997. The social psychology of protest, (Blackwell Publishers Inc., Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
  37. Locke, K. 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research, (Sage, London).Google Scholar
  38. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305. doi: 10.2307/3556659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markowitz, L., & Tice, K. W. (2002). ‹Paradoxes of professionalization: Parallel dilemmas in women’s organizations in the Americas’. Gender & Society, 16(6), 941–958. doi: 10.1177/089124302237896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McAdam, D. 1988. ‹Micromobilization contexts and recruitment to activism’, in B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi and S. Tarrow (eds.), From structure to action: Comparing social movement research across cultures, Vol. 1 (JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT), pp. 125-154.Google Scholar
  41. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. 1996. ‹Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes’, in D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N. Zald (eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements, (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY), pp. 1-20.Google Scholar
  42. McAdam, D., & Scott, R. W. 2005. ‹Organizations and movements’, in G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, R. W. Scott and M. N. Zald (eds.), Social movements and organization theory, (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY), pp. 4-40.Google Scholar
  43. McCarthy, J. D. 1996. ‹Constraints and opportunities in adopting, adapting, and inventing’, in D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N. Zald (eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements, (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY), pp. 141-151.Google Scholar
  44. McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. doi: 10.1086/226464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127. doi: 10.2307/259398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miles, M.S., & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).Google Scholar
  47. Palazzo, G., & Richter, U. (2005). CSR as business as usual? The case of the tobacco industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 387–401. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-7444-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peloza, J., & Hassay, D. N. (2006). Intra-organizational volunteerism: good soldiers, good deeds and good politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 357–379. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-5496-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43(3), 296–319. doi: 10.1177/0007650304268065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.Google Scholar
  51. Raeburn, N. C. 2004. Changing corporate America from inside out: Lesbian and gay workplace rights, (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).Google Scholar
  52. Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. N. (2000). Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 237–281. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22007-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(3), 397–418. doi: 10.1177/000765030003900404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rynes, S., & Gephart, R.P., Jr. 2004. ‹From the editors: Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal’, Academy of Management Journal 47(4), 454-462.Google Scholar
  55. Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at home”. Business & Society, 42(2), 169–201. doi: 10.1177/0007650303042002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwartz, M., & Paul, S. 1992. ‹Resource mobilization versus the mobilization of people: Why consensus movements cannot be instruments of social change’, In A. D. Morris and C. McClurg-Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory, (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT), pp. 205-223.Google Scholar
  57. Scully, M., & Segal, A. 2002. ‹Passion with an umbrella: Grassroots activists in the workplace’, in M. Lounsbury and M. J. Ventresca (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations Vol. 19, (JAI Press, Oxford), pp. 125-168.Google Scholar
  58. Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2003). Comparing big givers and small givers: Financial correlates of corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 195–211. doi: 10.1023/A:1024199411807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sen, S., & Bhattacharaya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. JM,R Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225. doi: 10.1509/jmkr. Scholar
  60. Snow, D. A., E. Burke-Rochford, Jr., Worden, S. K., and Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481. doi: 10.2307/2095581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2007). Moving management: Theorizing struggles against the hegemony of management. Organization Studies, 28(11), 1667–1698. doi: 10.1177/0170840606082219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Strang, D., & Jung, D.-I. 2005. ‹Organizational change as an orchestrated social movement: Recruitment to a corporate quality initiative’, In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, R. W. Scott and M. N. Zald (eds.), Social movements and organization theory, (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY), pp. 280-309.Google Scholar
  63. Tarrow, S. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics, 2nd edition, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  64. Tschirhart, M. 2005, ‹Employee volunteer programs’, in J. L. Brudney (ed.), Emerging areas of volunteering, Vol. 1, (ARNOVA, Indianapolis, IN), pp.13-30.Google Scholar
  65. Tschirhart, M., & Clair, S.L.: 2008, ‹Fine lines: Design and implementation challenges in employee volunteer programs’, in M. Liao-Troth (ed.), Challenges in Volunteer Management, (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT), pp. 205-225.Google Scholar
  66. Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations, (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
  67. Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods, (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
  68. Zald, M.N. 1996. ‹Culture, ideology, and strategic framing’, in D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N. Zald (eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY), pp. 261-274.Google Scholar
  69. Zald, M. N., & Berger, M. A. (1978). ‹Social movements in organizations: Coup d’état, insurgency, and mass movements’. American Journal of Sociology, 83(4), 823–861. doi: 10.1086/226634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith M. van der Voort
    • 1
  • Katherina Glac
    • 2
  • Lucas C.P.M. Meijs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business-Society ManagementRotterdam School of Management, Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.1000 LaSalle AvenueMinneapolisU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations