Running Just to Stand Still? Managing CSR Reputation in an Era of Ratcheting Expectations
- 88 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCSR 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.
- 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
- Glaser, B. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, The Sociology Press, Mills Valley, CA.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, A.J. (2001) From Heresy to Dogma: An Institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism (Expanded Edition), Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Van Valen, L. (1973) ‘A new evolutionary law’, Evolutionary Theory, 1, 1–30.Google Scholar
- 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