Corporate Reputation Review

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 56–72 | Cite as

Running Just to Stand Still? Managing CSR Reputation in an Era of Ratcheting Expectations

  • Stephanie Bertels
  • John Peloza
Academic Research


This paper presents the findings of a qualitative field study undertaken with senior managers responsible for their firm's corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities to explore the interaction between a firm's reputation for CSR and the actions of its industry peers; the actions of its industry; and the actions of other firms in its local geographic community. Examining this phenomenon from an institutional perspective, we seek to explain how and why CSR norms become institutionalized both within and across industries. Specifically, we develop a model to explain the diffusion of CSR norms; a process that we argue results in slowly ratcheting expectations over time. We propose that firms in sensitive industries face and respond to higher stakeholder expectations for CSR. In response, elite firms operating in the same geographic community across a range of industries take cues from the firms operating in industries with higher expectations for CSR. Thus, norms for CSR are established among the elite firms within a geographic community rather than within industries. These norms are then diffused within industries through mimetic forces. This creates a cycle whereby the general diffusion of these norms creates a new expectations gap for firms in high visibility industries. Their subsequent response will launch another cycle and, over time, raise expectations for CSR for all firms in the geographic region regardless of industry.


CSR CSR creep industry ratcheting expectations reputation 



Order of authorship was randomized and is shared equally. We gratefully acknowledge the valuable insights of three anonymous reviewers and the two editors of this issue. We also recognize support from the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.


  1. Bansal, P. (2005) ‘Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development’, Strategic Management Review, 26, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000) ‘Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness’, Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4), 717–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, M.L. (2006a) ‘Waves of collectivizing: A dynamic model of competition and cooperation over the life of an industry’, Corporate Reputation Review, 8 (4), 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, M.L. (2006b) ‘Finding a working balance between competitive and communal strategies’, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1753–1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett, W.P. and Hansen, M.T. (1996) ‘The Red Queen in organizational evolution’, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, I.E., Cunningham, P.H. and Drumwright, M.E. (2004) ‘Social alliances: Company-nonprofit collaboration’, California Management Review, 47 (1), 58–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997) ‘The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses’, Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deephouse, D.L. (1999) ‘To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance’, Strategic Management Journal, 20 (2), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991) ‘Introduction’, in P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp.1–38.Google Scholar
  12. Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N.A. and Barnett, M.L. (2000) ‘Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk’, Business and Society Review, 105 (1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fombrun, C.J. and Shanley, M. (1990) ‘What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy’, Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2), 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forman, J. and Argenti, P.A. (2005) ‘How corporate communication influences strategy implementation, reputation and the corporate brand: An exploratory qualitative study’, Corporate Reputation Review, 8 (3), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedkin, N.E. (1984) ‘Structural cohesion and equivalence explanations of social homogeneity’, Sociological Methods & Research, 12, 235–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galaskiewicz, J. (1997) ‘An urban grants economy revisited: corporate charitable contributions in the twin cities, 1979–1981, 1987–1989’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galaskiewicz, J. and Burt, R.S. (1991) ‘Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 88–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glaser, B. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, The Sociology Press, Mills Valley, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY.Google Scholar
  20. Godfrey, P.C. (2005) ‘The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 30 (4), 777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenwood, R. and Suddaby, R. (2006) ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms’, Academy of Management Journal, 49, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hess, D., Rogovsky, N. and Dunfee, T.W. (2002) ‘The next wave of corporate community involvement: Corporate social initiatives’, California Management Review, 44 (2), 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffman, A.J. (1999) ‘Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry’, Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffman, A.J. (2001) From Heresy to Dogma: An Institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism (Expanded Edition), Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Husted, B.W. (2000) ‘A contingency theory of corporate social performance’, Business & Society, 39 (1), 24–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, A., Lenox, M. and Barnett, M.L. (2002) ‘Strategic responses to the reputations commons problem’, in A. J. Hoffman and M. J. Ventresca (eds.), Organizations, Policy, and The Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp.393–406.Google Scholar
  27. King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2000) ‘Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry's responsible care program’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 698–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawrence, T. (1999) ‘Institutional strategy’, Journal of Management, 25 (2), 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawrence, T. and Suddaby, R. (2006) ‘Institutions and institutional work’, in C. Hardy, S. R. Clegg, T. Lawrence and W. Nord (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd edn., Sage Publication Ltd., London, pp.215–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis, S. (2003) ‘Reputation and corporate responsibility’, Journal of Communication Management, 7 (4), 356–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mahon, J.F. and Wartick, S.L. (2003) ‘Dealing with stakeholders: How reputation, credibility and framing influence the game’, Corporate Reputation Review, 6 (1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marquis, C., Glynn, M.A. and Davis, G.F. (2007) ‘Community isomorphism and corporate social action’, Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peloza, J. (2006) ‘Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for financial performance’, California Management Review, 48 (2), 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006) ‘Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility’, Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), 78–92.Google Scholar
  36. Rehbein, K., Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B. (2004) ‘Understanding shareholder activism: Which corporations are targeted’, Business & Society, 43 (3), 239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberts, P.W. and Dowling, G.R. (2002) ‘Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance’, Strategic Management Journal, 23 (12), 1077–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sabate, J.M.d.l.F. and Puente, E.d.Q. (2003) ‘Empirical analysis of the relationship between corporate reputation and financial performance: A survey of the literature’, Corporate Reputation Review, 6 (2), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schouten, J.W. (1991) ‘Selves in transition: Symbolic consumption in personal rites of passage and identity reconstruction’, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott, R.W. (1991) ‘Unpacking institutional arrangements’, in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp.164–182.Google Scholar
  41. Scott, W.R. (1987) ‘The adolescence of institutional theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32 (4), 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sherer, P. and Lee, K. (2002) ‘Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective’, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, C.N. (2003) ‘Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how?’, California Management Review, 45 (4), 52–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steets, J. and Weihe, T. (2006) ‘Corporate social responsibility: What we could learn from the past’, Paper presented at the 2nd conference on Corporate Social Responsibility at Humboldt-University, Berlin, 13–15 October.Google Scholar
  45. Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (1997) ‘Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees’, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Valen, L. (1973) ‘A new evolutionary law’, Evolutionary Theory, 1, 1–30.Google Scholar
  47. Wartick, S.L. (2002) ‘Measuring corporate reputation: Definition and data’, Business & Society, 41 (4), 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Werbel, J.D. and Wortman Jr., M.S. (2000) ‘Strategic philanthropy: Responding to the negative portrayals of social responsibility’, Corporate Reputation Review, 3 (2), 124–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams, R.J. and Barett, J.D. (2000) ‘Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: Is there a link’, Journal of Business Ethics, 26 (4), 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zukin, S. and DiMaggio, P.J. (eds.) (1990) ‘Introduction’, in Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.1–36.Google Scholar
  51. Zyglidopoulos, S.C. (2003) ‘The issue life-cycle: Implications for reputation for social performance and organizational legitimacy’, Corporate Reputation Review, 6 (1), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Bertels
    • 1
  • John Peloza
    • 2
  1. 1.Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Business Administration, Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations