Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Social Responsibility: Verständnis, Bedingungen und Wirkungen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychologie und Nachhaltigkeit

Zusammenfassung

Im Beitrag werden zunächst theoretische Grundlagen zum Verständnis von Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) vorgestellt, um anschließend auf das Fehlen eines einheitlichen Verständnisses in der Praxis einzugehen. Darauf aufbauend wird die Vielfältigkeit von CSR-Aktivitäten dargestellt. Es werden theoretische Annahmen sowie empirische Befunde angeführt, um Voraussetzungen für CSR im organisationalen Kontext darzulegen und aufzuzeigen, über welche Wirkmechanismen CSR auf verschiedene Stakeholder-Gruppen wirkt. Abschließend wird auf die Bedeutung von CSR eingegangen und Bedarfe in Bezug auf Beschäftigte formuliert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430410550754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badura, B., & Ehresmann, C. (2016). Unternehmenskultur, Mitarbeiterbindung und Gesundheit. In B. Badura, A. Ducki, H. Schröder, J. Klose, & M. Meyer (Hrsg.), Fehlzeiten-Report 2016: Unternehmenskultur und Gesundheit – Herausforderungen und Chancen (S. 81–94). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, E., Dettmers, J., & Tanner, G. (2016). Diffundierende Grenzen von Organisationskulturen – Die Rolle von Kundinnen und Kunden. In B. Badura, A. Ducki, H. Schröder, J. Klose, & M. Meyer (Hrsg.), Fehlzeiten-Report 2016: Unternehmenskultur und Gesundheit – Herausforderungen und Chancen (S. 193–200). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burckhardt, G. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility – Mythen und Maßnahmen: Unternehmen verantwortungsvoll führen, Regulierungslücken schließen. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celani, A., & Singh, P. (2011). Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel Review, 40, 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481111106093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU-Kommission. (2001). Grünbuch: Europäische Rahmenbedingungen für die soziale Verantwortung der Unternehmen. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0366&from=de. Zugegriffen: 10. Sept. 2015.

  • EU-Kommission. (2011). Eine neue EU-Strategie (2011–14) für die soziale Verantwortung der Unternehmen (CSR). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0681&from=FRN. Zugegriffen: 15. Febr. 2017.

  • EU-Kommission. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/corporate-social-responsibility_de. Zugegriffen: 17. Febr. 2017.

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (13. September 1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times, 122–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., El-Akremi, A., Igalens, J., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility influence on employees. ICCSR Research Paper Series, 1479–1512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39, 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gröneweg, C., & Matiaske, W. (im Druck). Dresscode entschlüsseln: Eine organisationstheoretische Perspektive für die CSR-Forschung. In C. Jakobeit, R. Kappel, & U. Mückenberger (Hrsg.), Transnationale Akteure und Normbildungsnetzwerke. Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad case, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change: Winning employee support for new business goals. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4, 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1469701042000221696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lützén, K., & Kvist, B. E. (2012). Moral distress: A comparative analysis of theoretical understandings and inter-related concepts. HEC Forum, 24, 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, T. L., & Behnam, M. (2010). The dangers of decoupling: The relationship between compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1499–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2003). Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P., Maltin, E. R., & Thai, S. (2012). Employee commitment and well-being. In J. Houdmont, S. Leka, & R. R. Sinclair (Hrsg.), Contemporary occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice (Bd. 2, S. 19–35). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Monachino, M. S., & Moreira, P. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and the health promotion debate: An international review on the potential role of corporations. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 7, 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of “Triple bottom Line”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25, 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 15197–15200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaper, T. (2011). The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work? Indiana Business Review, Spring, 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnyder, A. B. (1989). Unternehmungskultur: die Entwicklung eines Unternehmungskultur-Modells unter Berücksichtigung ethnologischer Erkenntnisse and dessen Anwendung auf die Innovations-Thematik. Bern: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stremming, S. (2009). Innovativität – Alles eine Frage der Kultur? In E. Bamberg, J. Dettmers, C. Marggraf-Micheel, & S. Stremming (Hrsg.), Innovationen in Organisationen. Der Kunde als König (S. 79–120). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taneja, S. S., Taneja, P. K., & Gupta, R. K. (2011). Researches in corporate social responsibility: A review of shifting focus, paradigms, and methodologies. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0732-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torugsa, N. A., O’Donohue, W., & Hecker, R. (2013). Proactive CSR: An empirical analysis of the role of its economic, social and environmental dimensions on the association between capabilities and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1405-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Nieuwenboer, N. A. den., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, W. G., Unterrainer, C., & Höge, T. (2008). Sociomoral atmosphere and prosocial and democratic value orientations in enterprises with different levels of structurally anchored participation. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 22, 171–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerbini, F. (2015). CSR Initiatives as Market Signals: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Business Ethics. Online Vorveröffentlichung. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2922-8.

  • Zwetsloot, G., & Leka, S. (2010). Corporate culture, health, and well-being. In S. Leka & J. Houdmont (Hrsg.), Occupational health psychology (S. 250–268). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland

    Grit Tanner & Marlies Gude

  2. Institut für Psychologie, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland

    Eva Bamberg

Authors
  1. Grit Tanner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Bamberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marlies Gude
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grit Tanner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kompetenzzentrum Nachhaltige Universität (KNU), Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Claudia Thea Schmitt

  2. Institut für Psychologie, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Eva Bamberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tanner, G., Bamberg, E., Gude, M. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility: Verständnis, Bedingungen und Wirkungen. In: Schmitt, C., Bamberg, E. (eds) Psychologie und Nachhaltigkeit. Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19965-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19965-4_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-19964-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-19965-4

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation