Pan-European Approach. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding CSR

  • Dirk Matten
  • Jeremy Moon


In recent years the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gained unprecedented momentum in Europe. Even the sceptical Martin Wolff, Chief Economics Correspondent of the Financial Times commented that “CSR is an idea whose time has come” (Wolff, 2002: 62). CSR is a cluster concept which overlaps with such concepts as business ethics, corporate philanthropy, corporate citizenship, sustainability and environmental responsibility. It is a dynamic and contestable concept that is embedded in each social, political, economic and institutional context.


Corporate Social Responsibility Business Ethic Corporate Social Responsibility Activity Corporate Social Performance Corporate Citizenship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albert, M. 1991. Capitalisme contre capitalisme. Paris: LeSeuil.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U. 1997. Subpolitics, ecology and the disintegration of institutional power. Organization & Environment, 10(1): 52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendell, J. (ed.), 2000. Terms for endearment: business, NGOs and sustainable development. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, A.B. 1979. A three dimensional model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Pan-European Approach — A Conceptual Framework for Understanding CSR 353Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, A.B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons (Jul–Aug): 39–48.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, A.B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility — evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3): 268–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Child, J. 2000. Theorizing about organizations cross-nationally. In: J.L.C. Cheng and R.B. Peterson (Eds.), Advances in international comparative management, Vol. 13: 27–75. Stamford, CN: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  9. Choi, C., Hilton, B. and Millar, C. 2004. Emergent Globalization. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  10. Commission of the European Communities. 2001. Green Paper: Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Brussels: EU Commission.Google Scholar
  11. Commission of the European Communities. 2002. Communication from the Commission concerning corporate social responsibility: A business contribution to sustainable development. Brussels: EU Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Crane, A. and Matten, D. 2004a. Business ethics — A European perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Crane, A. and Matten, D. 2004b. Questioning the domain of the business ethics curriculum. Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  14. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez Young, A., Moon, J. and Young, R. 2003. The UK Corporate Social Responsibility consultancy industry: a phenomenological approach. Nottingham: Research Paper Series of the International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, No 14.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13. Sept. 1970.Google Scholar
  17. Fukukawa, K. and Moon, J. 2004. A Japanese Model of Corporate Social Responsibility?: A study of website reporting. Journal of Business Ethics: forthcoming.Google Scholar
  18. Geppert, M., Matten, D. and Williams, K. (eds.), 2002. Challenges for European Management in a Global Context — Experiences from Britain and Germany. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Hoffman, A.J. 2001. From heresy to dogma: an institutional history of corporate environmentalism (Expanded ed.). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffman, A.J. and Ventresca, M.J. 2002. Organizations, policy and the natural environment: institutional and strategic perspectives. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hollingsworth, J.R. and Boyer, R. 1997. Coordination of economic actors and social systems of production. In: J.R. Hollingsworth and R. Boyer (Eds.), Contemporary capitalism: the embeddedness of institutions: 1–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jespersen, K. 2003. Social Partnerships: The Role of Government in Denmark. In: M. Morsing and C. Thyssen (Eds.), Corporate Values and Responsibility: The Case of Denmark. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  23. Lane, C. 1989. Management and labour in Europe. The industrial enterprise in Germany, Britain and France. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  24. Lane, C. 1992. European business systems: Britain and Germany compared. In: R. Whitley (Ed.), European business systems: 64–97. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Lane, C. 1994. Industrial order and the transformation of industrial relations: Britain, Germany and France. In: R. Hyman and A. Ferner (Eds.), New frontiers in European industrial relations: 167–195. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Levidov, L. and Carr, S. 2000. Precautionary regulation: GM crops in the European Union. Journal of Risk Research, Special Issue, 3(3): 187–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levy, D. and Egan, D. 2000. Corporate politics and climate change. In: R.A. Higgott, G.R.D. Underhill and A. Bieler (Eds.), Non-state actors and authority in the global system: 138–153. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Levy, D.L. and Kolk, A. 2002. Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry. Business and Politics, 3(2): 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lofstedt, R.E. and Vogel, D. 2001. The changing character of regulation: A comparison of Europe and the United States. Risk Analysis, 21(3): 399–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maignan, I., Ralston, D.A. 2002. Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’ Self-presentations. In: Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3): 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matten, D. 2004. The impact of the risk society thesis on environmental politics and management in a globalizing economy — principles, proficiency, perspectives. Journal of Risk Research, 7(4): forthcoming.Google Scholar
  32. Matten, D. and Moon, J. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics: 377–398.Google Scholar
  33. Maurice, M. and Sorge, A. (eds.), 2000. Embedding Organizations: Societal analysis of actors, organizations and socio-economic context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Maurice, M., Sorge, A. and Warner, M. 1980. Societal differences in organizing manufacturing units: A comparison of France, West Germany and Great Britain. Organization Studies, 1(1): 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayer, M. and Whittington, R. 2002. The evolving European corporation: strategy, structure and social science. In: M. Geppert, D. Matten and K. Williams (Eds.), Challenges for European management in a global context: 19–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  36. McGrath, C. 2002. Comparative lobbying practices: Washington, London, Brussels. Paper presented at the Political Studies Association annual conference, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  37. McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyer, J.W. 2000. Globalization — Sources and Effects on National States and Societies. International Sociology, 15: 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moon, J. 2004a. CSR in the UK: an explicit model of business — society relations. In: A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), CSR across Europe: 51–65., Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Moon, J. 2004b. Government as a Driver of Corporate Social Responsibility. The UK in Comparative Perspective. Nottingham: Research Paper Series of the International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, No. 19.Google Scholar
  42. Orts, E.W. and Deketelaere, K. (eds.), 2001. Environmental Contracts. Dordrecht et al.: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Palazzo, B. 2002. U.S.-American and German business ethics: an intercultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 41: 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sorge, A. 1991. Strategic fit and societal effect — interpreting cross-national comparisons of technology, organization and human resources. Organization Studies, 12(2): 161–190.Google Scholar
  45. Sorge, A. and Warner, M. 1986. Comparative factory organisation. An Anglo-German comparison of management and manpower manufacturing. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  46. Strebel, H. 1980. Umwelt und Betriebswirtschaft. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
  47. Tempel, A. and Walgenbach, P. 2005. Global standardization of organisational forms and management practices? Combining American and European institutionalism. Journal of Management Studies, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  48. Vogel, D. 1986. National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca NY, London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Whitley, R. (ed.), 1992. European business systems. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Whitley, R. 1997. Business systems. In: A. Sorge and M. Warner (Eds.), The IEBM handbook of organizational behaviour: 173–186. London: International Thomson Business Press.Google Scholar
  51. Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent capitalisms. The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Whitley, R. 2002a. Business Systems. In: A. Sorge (Ed.), Organization: 178–212. London: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  53. Whitley, R. (ed.), 2002b. Competing Capitalisms: Institutions and Economies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  54. Whitley, R. and Kristensen, P.H. (eds.), 1996. The changing European firm. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Whitley, R. and Kristensen, P.H. (eds.), 1997. Governance at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wolff, M. 2002. Response to “Confronting the Critics”. New Academy Review, 1(1): 230–237.Google Scholar
  57. Wynne, B. and Dressel, K. 2001. Cultures of uncertainty — transboundary risks and BSE in Europe. In: J. Linneroth-Bayer, R. Löfstedt and G. Sjöstedt (Eds.), Transboundary risk management: 121–154. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Matten
    • 1
  • Jeremy Moon
    • 2
  1. 1.Schulich School of BusinessYork UniversityToronto
  2. 2.International Centre for Corporate Social ResponsibilityNottingham University Business SchoolNottingham

Personalised recommendations