Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive Processes in the CSR Decision-Making Process: A Sensemaking Perspective

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

Abstract

Applying the sensemaking perspective in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a recent but promising development. Using an in-depth exploratory case study, we analyze and discuss the CSR character of British American Tobacco (BAT) Switzerland. Our findings indicate that BAT Switzerland does not follow traditional patters of building CSR. BAT Switzerland can be classified as a “legitimacy seeker,” characterized mainly by a relational identity orientation and legitimation strategies that might provide pragmatic and/or cognitive legitimacy. We conclude that understanding the cognitive processes underlying the CSR decision-making process is of fundamental value when analyzing and changing the CSR approach of a firm. We discuss boundary conditions of the CSR character framework and expand it by differentiating between process and product legitimacy, as both perspectives have important but possibly different implications for the firm.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Switzerland is generally acknowledged in Europe as a conservative environment where changes occur slowly, and usually considerably later than in more progressive European countries.

  2. One of the consequences was that BAT Switzerland shows a relatively homogeneous picture with regards to responses of different interviewees and the information available on the local website.

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to Ceos? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corpate performance, and Ceo values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BAT Switzerland (2007). Welcome to British American Tobacco Switzerland. Retrieved March 5, 2007 from http://www.bat.ch/.

  • Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 576–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calton, J. M., & Payne, S. L. (2003). Coping with paradox multistakeholder learning dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems. Business and Society, 42(1), 7–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, S. (2004). Advocacy in action: extreme corporate makeover interruptus: denormalising tobacco industry corporate schmoozing. Tobacco control, 13(4), 445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Stakeholders as citizens? Rethinking rights, participation, and democracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drumwright, M. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneconomic buying criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environment. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives—a stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 755–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, K., & Rust, R. (2001). Interrater reliability assessment in content analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(12), 71–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Dunn, P. (2004). Corporate public affairs: Commitment, resources, and structure. Business and Society, 43(2), 196–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grolin, J. (1998). Corporate legitimacy in risk society: the case of Brent Spar. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(4), 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2001). The postnational constellation: Political essays (M. Pensky, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Hastings, M. (1999). A new operational paradigm for oil operations in sensitive environments: An analysis of social pressure, corporate capabilities and competitive advantage. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8, 267–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herriott, S. R., Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. (1985). Learning from experience in organizations. The American Economic Review, 75, 298–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiss, S. (2009). From implicit to explicit corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among US firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, K. T. (2012). The advertising effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and brand equity: Evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan. Journal of business ethics, 109(2), 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing communications and corporate social responsibility (CSR): marriage of convenience or shotgun wedding? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joutsenvirta, M. (2011). Setting boundaries for corporate social responsibility: Firm–NGO relationship as discursive legitimation struggle. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, M., & Van Tulder, R. (2003). Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindorff, M., Jonson, E. P., & McGuire, L. (2012). Strategic corporate social responsibility in controversial industry sectors: The social value of harm minimisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 457–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, I. (1985). The limits of business self-regulation. California Management Review, 27(3), 132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages and cultural phases: a critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • O’Higgins, E. R. (2010). Corporations, civil society, and stakeholders: An organizational conceptualization. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Richter, U. (2005). CSR business as usual? The case of the tobacco industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrick, J. A., & Quinn, J. F. (2001). The challenge of leadership accountability for integrity capacity as a strategic asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 331–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., De Bakker, F. G., & Moon, J. (2013). Complete and partial organizing for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 651–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. S., & Rands, G. P. (1989). Sensemaking, understanding, and committing. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota Studies (pp. 337–366). New York: Ballinger/Harper Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackmann, S. A. (1992). Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organizational knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 140–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative truth and historical truth. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen, A. (1998). The stakeholder strategy: Profiting from collaborative business relationships. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T., Dienhart, J., & Thomas, T. (2008). The ethical commitment to compliance: Building value-based cultures. California Management Review, 50(2), 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the Box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(2), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vining, A. R., Shapiro, D. M., & Borges, B. (2005). Building the firm’s political (lobbying) strategy. Journal of Public Affairs, 5(2), 150–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, X. (2008). Impacts of corporate code of conduct on labor standards: A case study of reebok’s athletic footwear supplier factory in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 513–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 125–132.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nottingham China, Taikang East Road 199, Ningbo, 315100, China

    Ulf H. Richter & Felix F. Arndt

Authors
  1. Ulf H. Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix F. Arndt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix F. Arndt.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview Guide: Company (Round 1)

This interview guide has been tested and refined based on a pilot study.

1. Introduction

Let me give you a short introduction into the topic: I am working on my dissertation at the HEC Lausanne, and I am interested in understanding how corporate responsibility is perceived both internally and externally by different groups in society and what kind of influence companies have on the character of this representation. I have some questions I’d like to ask in this interview, and I would like to record our conversation and take notes. Do you agree? You may ask me to turn-off the recorder at any time you like.

2. Explanation of consent form

Before we start, I will walk you through the consent form that I have prepared. It outlines what you are agreeing to do by participating in this study. I may contact you for another follow-up interview. I will send you the transcript of your interview and may also ask you to review, as well as some of my initial explanations and conclusions. The consent form also explains that neither you nor the company will be identified in my study. I am going to assign a pseudonym to you in my study and all tapes, transcripts, and quotes will use that pseudonym. Therefore, what you say will be confidential, and you will remain anonymous.

3. General questions

  1. (a)

    How long have you been working at this company?

  2. (b)

    How long have you been a manager at this company?

  3. (c)

    What other management experiences do you have outside of this company?

  4. (d)

    How many people report to you? How many of them are managers as well?

  5. (e)

    What kinds of training regarding values and responsible behavior have you had at this company?

  6. f)

    What is your personal interest in the topic of corporate responsibility?

Section 1: Corporate Responsibility

4. Questions to solicit dictionary knowledge about corporate responsibility

  1. (a)

    How would you describe the responsibility of a company in general?

5. Questions to solicit directory knowledge about corporate responsibility

  1. (a)

    In the past, when the company was accused of not meeting its corporate responsibility, how was it dealt with by the management? Can you walk me through what happened? Can you give me some concrete examples?

  2. (b)

    What has been the main driver for the initial engagement in corporate responsibility issues in this company?

  3. (c)

    Which has been the major external factor that was responsible for this shift in behavior? (Depending on answer to 5a)?

  4. (d)

    When and how did you learn about the topic of corporate responsibility and how to approach it as a manager?

  5. (e)

    What does corporate responsibility mean for you as a manager in the context of your daily job? Can you give me an example?

  6. (f)

    How did the idea of corporate responsibility change over time? Do you think the discussion has increased and if so, why?

  7. (g)

    How do you, as a manager, report on corporate responsibility issues? How is it reported to you? Do you take the perspective of a manager or of the company?

  8. (h)

    What kinds of methods (e.g., processes, tools, or systems) do you as a manager use for measuring performance with regards to corporate responsibility?

  9. (i)

    How systematically do you use them?

  10. (j)

    What happens if an employee shows immoral or illegal behavior that causes problems for the organization? Do you have a whistle-blowing policy?

  11. (k)

    Is the employee rewarded for responsible behavior that goes beyond the required fulfillment of daily tasks? If so, how?

  12. (l)

    Which role does communication and dialog play for corporate responsibility and which form should it take ideally?

  13. (m)

    How important is leadership for the responsible behavior of a company and which form should it take ideally?

  14. (n)

    How important are civil society groups and their activities for the perception of companies? Can you give me some examples?

6. Questions to solicit recipe knowledge about corporate responsibility

  1. (a)

    What is your ideal conception of corporate responsibility and how should it be integrated into the managerial process?

  2. (b)

    If I were a new manager, what advice would you give me about managing responsibility issues at this company?

  3. (c)

    Can you give me an example of a leader who leads corporate responsibility efforts?

  4. (d)

    Should there be a political framework for corporate responsibility that sets standards and establishes a sanction mechanism? Why or why not?

  5. (e)

    What are the future trends in corporate accountability, corporate reporting, and social accounting? What do you think should change and will change?

7. Questions to solicit axiomatic knowledge about corporate responsibility

  1. (a)

    What do you think are the real core values of this company?

  2. (b)

    What differentiates your company from other companies in your industry regarding corporate responsibility issues?

  3. (c)

    Do you think this is a responsible company? Why do you think so (or not)?

Section 2: Stakeholder Concept

8. Questions to solicit dictionary knowledge about stakeholders

  1. (a)

    What is your definition of a stakeholder?

  2. (b)

    Who do you consider the important stakeholders of the company? In general, and in this company?

9. Questions to solicit directory knowledge about stakeholders

  1. (a)

    What do you think how should stakeholders be treated?

  2. (b)

    Can you tell me about a time when stakeholder were not treated by the company as they ought to be? What happened? (Depending on answer to 5n)

10. Questions to solicit recipe knowledge about corporate responsibility

  1. (a)

    If it were up to you to create a stakeholder management system, what would you want to be sure was included?

11. Questions to solicit axiomatic knowledge about stakeholders

  1. (a)

    When the company received criticism regarding its corporate activities in the past, were any aspects of the management of stakeholders being done differently as a result? What do you think is the reason?

  2. (b)

    Why do you think the management of stakeholders did or did not work as you think it should in the past?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richter, U.H., Arndt, F.F. Cognitive Processes in the CSR Decision-Making Process: A Sensemaking Perspective. J Bus Ethics 148, 587–602 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3011-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3011-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation