Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 111, Issue 2, pp 281–299 | Cite as

An Institution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Multi-National Corporations (MNCs): Form and Implications

Article

Abstract

This article investigates corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an institution within UK multi-national corporations (MNCs). In the context of the literature on the institutionalization of CSR and on critical CSR, it presents two main findings. First, it contributes to the CSR mainstream literature by confirming that CSR has not only become institutionalized in society but that a form of this institution is also present within MNCs. Secondly, it contributes to the critical CSR literature by suggesting that unlike broader notions of CSR shared between multiple stakeholders, MNCs practise a form of CSR that undermines the broader stakeholder concept. By increasingly focusing on strategic forms of CSR activity, MNCs are moving away from a societal understanding of CSR that focuses on redressing the impacts of their operations through stakeholder concerns, back to any activity that supports traditional business imperatives. The implications of this shift are considered using institutional theory to evaluate macro-institutional pressures for CSR activity and the agency of powerful incumbents in the contested field of CSR.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility Critical perspectives Multi-national corporations Institutional theory Business case 

References

  1. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arenas, D., Lozano, J., & Albareda, L. (2009). The role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual perceptions among stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Sonnenstuhl, W. (1996). The organizational transformation process: The micropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alignment of logics of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 477–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, M. (2002). Research methods. The Marketing Review, 3, 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee, S. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 20(5), 777–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beliveau, B., Cottrill, M., & O’Neill, H. (1994). Predicting corporate social responsiveness: A model drawn from three perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(9), 731–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bies, R., Bartunek, J., Fort, T., & Zald, M. (2007). Corporations as social change agents: Individual, interpersonal, institutional and environmental dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 788–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blowfield, M. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: The failing discipline and why it matters for international relations. International Relations, 19(2), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. G. (2005). Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81(3), 499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bondy, K. (2008). The paradox of power in CSR: A case study on implementation. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Multinational corporation codes of conduct: Governance tools for corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4), 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boxenbaum, E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as institutional hybrids. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1), 45–64.Google Scholar
  15. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2003). The evolution of corporate charitable contributions in the UK between 1989 and 1999: Industry structure and stakeholder influences. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(3), 216–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. England: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, J. (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
  18. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.Google Scholar
  19. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Consolandi, C., Jaiswal-Dale, A., Poggiani, E., & Vercelli, A. (2009). Global standards and ethical stock indexes: The case of the Dow Jones Sustainability Stoxx index. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coupland, C., & Brown, A. D. (2004). Constructing organizational identities on the web: A case study of Royal Dutch/Shell. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1325–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cragg, W., & Greenbaum, A. (2002). Reasoning about responsibilities: Mining company managers on what stakeholders are owed. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cramer, J. (2005). Experiences with structuring corporate social responsibility in Dutch industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 583–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008a). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. (2008b). Corporate social responsibility: in a global context. In A. Crane, D. Matten, & L. Spence (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context (pp. 3–20). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Creed, D., Scully, M., & Austin, J. (2002). Clothes make the person? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and the social construction of identity. Organization Science, 13(5), 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Curry, T., Ansolabehere, S., & Herzog, H. (2007). A survey of public attitudes towards climate change and climate change mitigation technologies in the United States: Analysis of 2006 results.Google Scholar
  28. Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travel of ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating the organizational change. New York: Walter De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Davenport, K. (2000). Corporate citizenship: A stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and identifying measures for assessing it. Business & Society, 39(2), 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Davies, I. A. (2009). Alliances and networks: Creating success in the UK fair trade market. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore corporate social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 901–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Detomasi, D. A. (2008). The political roots of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 807–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Devinney, T. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dijksterhuis, M., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (1999). Where do new organizational forms come from? Management logics as a source of coevolution. Organization Science, 10(5), 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Doane, D. (2005). The myth of CSR: The problem with assuming that companies can do well while also doing good is that markets don’t really work that way. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3(fall), 22–29.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Doh, J., Howton, S., Howton, S., & Siegal, D. (2010). Does the market respond to an endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information and legitimacy. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1461–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284.Google Scholar
  42. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  43. Dunning, J. (1998). Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capitalism. In M. Colombo (Ed.), The changing boundaries of the firm (pp. 29–59). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ECCR. (2006). News release: Responsible investors back Shell shareholder resolution.Google Scholar
  45. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  46. Elkington, J. (1998). The ‘triple bottom line’ for twenty-first-century business. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), Companies in a world of conflict: NGOs, sanctions and corporate responsibility (pp. 32–69). London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs/Earthscan.Google Scholar
  47. European Commission. (2008). Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change.Google Scholar
  48. Fiss, P., Kennedy, M., & Davis, G. (2011). How golden parachutes unfolded: Diffusion and variation of a controversial practice. Organization Science, Articles in Advance, 1–23.Google Scholar
  49. Fiss, P., & Zajac, E. (2004). The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 501–534.Google Scholar
  50. Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fransen, L. W., & Kolk, A. (2007). Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14(5), 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  53. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.Google Scholar
  55. Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gerson, K., & Horowitz, R. (2002). Observation and interviewing: Options and choices in qualitative research. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  58. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  59. Global Reporting Initiative. (1999). Sustainability reporting guidelines: Exposure draft for public comment and pilot-testing. In M. Bennett, P. James, & L. Klinkers (Eds.), Sustainable measures: Evaluation and reporting of environmental and social performance. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1031–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gond, J.-P., Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2011). The government of self-regulation: On the comparative dynamics of corporate social responsibility. Economy and Society (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  62. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Gray, R. (2001). Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: What (if anything) have we learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hensmans, M. (2003). Social movement organizations: A metaphone for strategic actors in institutional fields. Organization Studies, 24(3), 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hoffman, A. J. (2001). From heresy to Dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmentalism. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Husted, B. W. (2003). Governance choices for corporate social responsibility: To contribute, collaborate or internalize? Long Range Planning, 36(5), 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Husted, B., & Allen, D. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among large firms: Lessons from the Spanish experience. Long Range Planning, 40, 594–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Idemudia, U. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and developing countries: Moving the critical CSR research agenda in Africa forward. Progress in Development Studies, 11(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Jermier, J. M., Forbes, L. C., Benn, S., & Orsato, R. J. (2006). The new corporate environmentalism and green politics. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (pp. 618–650). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Johnson, P. (2006). Whence democracy? A review and critique of the conceptual dimensions and implications of the business case for organizational democracy. Organization, 13(2), 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kaufman, A., Tiantubtim, E., Pussayapibul, N., & Davids, P. (2004). Implementing voluntary labour standards and codes of conduct in the Thai garment industry. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13, 91–99.Google Scholar
  74. Keats, D. (2000). Interviewing: A practical guide for students and professionals. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  75. King, B., & Pearce, N. (2010). The contentiousness of markets: Politics, social movements and institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Knight, J. (1992). Institutions and social conflict. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kurucz, E., Colbert, B., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegal (Eds.), The oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 83–112). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.Google Scholar
  79. Langlois, C. C., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1990). Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe and the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(4), 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Laplume, A., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Levy, D. L. (2008). Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 943–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage.Google Scholar
  83. Linneroth-Bayer, J., Löfstedt, R., & Sjöstedt, G. (2001). Transboundary risk management. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  84. Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7), 993–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Macalister, T. (2010). Tony Hayward’s parting shot: ‘I’m too busy to attend Senate hearing.Google Scholar
  88. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  90. Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Mason, R. (2010). BP’s Tony Hayward resigns after being ‘demonised and vilified’ in the US.Google Scholar
  92. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1/2), 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Corporate social responsibility education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. McAdam, D., & Scott, R. W. (2005). Organizations and movements. In G. Davis, D. McAdam, R. W. Scott, & M. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory (pp. 4–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
  98. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1998). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  100. 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
  101. Moon, J. (2002). Business social responsibility and new governance. Government and Opposition, 37(3), 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 427–451.Google Scholar
  103. Moon, J., & Orlitzky, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility education. In D. Swanson & D. Fisher (Eds.), Assessing business ethics education. Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  104. Moon, J., & Vogel, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, government and civil society. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 605–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Morsing, M. (2003). Conspicuous responsibility: Communicating responsibility—To whom? In M. Morsing & C. Thyssen (Eds.), Corporate values and responsibility: The case of Denmark. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  107. Nattrass, B., & Altomare, M. (1999). The natural step for business: Wealth, ecology and the evolutionary corporation. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  108. Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, accountability and community: The limits of the CSR agenda. International Affairs, 81(3), 541–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Owen, D., & O’Dwyer, B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The reporting and assurance dimension. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 384–412). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Parent, M., & Deephouse, D. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  114. Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.Google Scholar
  116. Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  117. Prieto-Carron, M., Lund-Thomsen, P., Chan, A., Muro, A., & Bhushan, C. (2006). Critical perspectives on CSR and development: What we know, what we don’t know, and what we need to know. International Affairs, 82(5), 977–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Rijnders, S., & Boer, H. (2004). A typology of continuous improvement implementation process. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(4), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  120. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students 4e. England: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  121. Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006). Managing the business case for sustainability. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  122. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility—Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Scherer, A., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2009). Introduction to the special issue: Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  125. Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press Berkley.Google Scholar
  126. Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  128. Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Stern, R., & Barley, S. (1996). Organizations and social systems: Organization theory’s neglected mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Stevens, J., Steensma, H. K., Harrison, D., & Cochran, P. (2004). Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives ‘decisions’. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  133. Swanson, D. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 506–521.Google Scholar
  134. Tempel, A., & Walgenbach, P. (2007). Global standardization of organisational forms and management practices? What new institutionalism and the business-systems approach can learn from each other. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Thornton, P. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  137. Tolbert, P., & Zucker, L. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  138. Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business & Society Review (00453609), 109(1), 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. WBCSD. (2005). Business for development. Business solutions in support of the Millennium Development Goals. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  140. Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.Google Scholar
  142. Zadek, S. (2006). Responsible competitiveness: Reshaping global markets through responsible business practices. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 334–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Zilber, T. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 234–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Zilber, T. (2006). The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: Translations of rational myths in Israeli High Tech. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementUniversity of BathBathUK
  2. 2.Nottingham University Business SchoolNottinghamUK
  3. 3.Schulich School of BusinessYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations