Advertisement

The Materiality of CSR Regulation: The Making of CSR Apparatuses in a Diversified Industrial Group

  • Julie Bastianutti
Chapter
  • 212 Downloads
Part of the Technology, Work and Globalization book series (TWG)

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been pervading firms’ actions and discourses for more than a couple of decades. One of the earliest definitions of CSR in the early 1960s was given by McGuire (1963, 144): ‘The idea of social responsibilities supposes that the corporation has not only economic and legal obligations but also certain responsibilities to society which extend beyond these obligations.’ Since then, definitions have proliferated, but one consensual point — if not the only one — is the emphasis on the voluntary character of actions undertaken to go beyond legal obligations (Carroll, 1999; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Vogel, 2005; Crane et al., 2008). The voluntary character of CSR regulation is particularly critical for transnational corporations having to comply with different domestic laws but also international regulations, norms and soft law (McBarnet et al., 2007). CSR can be viewed as a situation of ‘organizational hypocrisy’ (Brunsson, 2002) where contradictory expectations and demands that are social, political and economic cannot all be met. If satisfying all of them seems unrealistic, the risk of a double decoupling is on the contrary very real: firms have to prevent contradictions between policy and practice (what they say and what they do) on the one hand, and between means and ends (actual results can be at odds with initial aims and plans) on the other (Bromley and Powell, 2012).

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility Carbon Footprint Global Compact Triple Bottom Line Corporate Social Responsibility Issue 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agamben, G. (2006). Che cos’è un dispositivo? Rome: Nottetempo.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben. G. (2007). Che cos’è il contemporaneo? Rome: Nottetempo.Google Scholar
  3. Agamben, G. (2008). Qu’est-ce qu’un dispositif? (translated by M. Rueff). Paris: Rivages.Google Scholar
  4. Aggeri, F. (2011). Le développement durable comme champ d’innovation. Revue Française de Gestion, (6), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aggeri, F. (2014). Qu’est-ce qu’un dispositif stratégique? Éléments théoriques, méthodologiques et empiriques. Le Libellio d’Aegis, 10 (1), 47–64.Google Scholar
  6. Aggeri, F., Abrassart, C., Pezet, E. & Acquier, A. (2005). Organiser le développement durable: Expériences des entreprises pionnières et formation de règles d’action collective. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
  7. Albertini, E. (2014). A Descriptive Analysis of Environmental Disclosure: A Longitudinal Study of French Companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121 (2), 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Austin, J. L. (1979). Philosophical Papers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bastianutti, J. (2014). Les dynamiques organisationnelles liées à la RSE. Le cas de la relation siège-filiale. Revue Française de Gestion, 40 (240), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bastianutti, J. & Dumez, H. (2012). Pourquoi les entreprises sont-elles désormais reconnues comme socialement responsables? Gérer et Comprendre, 109, 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Belmondo, C. & Sargis-Roussel, C. (2015). Negotiating Language, Meaning and Intention: Strategy Infrastructure as the Outcome of Using a Strategy Tool through Transforming Strategy Objects. British Journal of Management, 26, S90–S104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berry, M. (1983). Une technologie invisible. L’impact des instruments de gestion sur l’évolution des systèmes humains. Centre pour la Recherche en Gestion Working Paper Series, Paris: Ecole Polytechnique.Google Scholar
  15. Boström, M. & Garsten, C. (eds). (2008). Organizing Transnational Accountability. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Bromley, P. & Powell, W. W. (2012). From Smoke and Mirrors to Walking the Talk: Decoupling in the Contemporary World. The Academy of Management Annals, 6 (1), 483–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brunsson, N. (2002). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations (second edition). Copenhagen: Abstrakt.Google Scholar
  18. Brunsson, N., Rasche, A. & Seidl, D. (2012). The Dynamics of Standardization: Three Perspectives on Standards in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 33 (5–6), 613–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society, 38 (3), 268–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds). (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cross, J. (2011). Detachment As a Corporate Ethic: Materializing CSR in the Diamond Supply Chain. Focaal, 2011 (60), 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dale, K. (2005). Building a Social Materiality: Spatial and Embodied Politics in Organizational Control. Organization, 12 (5), 649–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dumez, H. (2009). Qu’est-ce qu’un dispositif? Agamben, Foucault et Irénée de Lyon dans leurs rapports avec la gestion. Le Libellio d’Aegis, 5 (3), 34–39.Google Scholar
  24. Dumez, H. (2014). Qu’est-ce qui fait la spécificité des sciences de gestion? Le Libellio d’Aegis, 10 (1), 65–68.Google Scholar
  25. Dumez, H., Gigout, E. & Journé, B. (2013). La visée externe et interne des dispositifs d’accountability. Revue Française de Gestion, 8, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (2001a). Dits et écrits, 1954–1988. 1, 1954–1975 (édition sous la direction de Defert, D., Ewald, F. & Lagrange, J.). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  28. Foucault, M. (2001b). Dits et écrits, 1954–1988. 2, 1976–1988 (édition sous la direction de Defert, D., Ewald, F. & Lagrange, J.). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  29. Garsten, C. (2003). The Cosmopolitan Organization — an Essay on Corporate Accountability. Global Networks, 3 (3), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garsten, C. (2008). The United Nations-Soft and Hard: Regulating Social Accountability for Global Business. In M. Boström and C. Garsten (eds), Organizing Transnational Accountability, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 27–45.Google Scholar
  31. Garsten, C. & Boström, M. (2008). Organizing Transnational Accountability. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  32. McBarnet, D., Voiculescu, A. & Campbell, T. (2007). The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 117–127.Google Scholar
  35. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies, 28 (9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Orlikowski, W. J. (2009). The Sociomateriality of Organisational Life: Considering Technology in Management Research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34 (1), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Putnam, H. (2002). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Tamm Hallström, K. & Boström, M. (2010). Transnational Multi-Stakeholder Standardization Organizing Fragile Non-State Authority. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vogel, D. (2005). The Market for Virtues: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Julie Bastianutti 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Bastianutti

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations