Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Terminology Matters: A Critical Exploration of Corporate Social Responsibility Terms

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance and impact of terminology used to describe corporate social responsibility (CSR). Through a review of key literature and concepts, we uncover how the economic business case has become the dominant driver behind CSR action. With reference to the literature on semiotics, connotative meaning and social marketing we explore how the terminology itself may have facilitated this co-opting of an ethical concept by economic interests. The broader issue of moral muteness and its relation to ethical behaviour is considered. We conclude by proposing a number of important attributes for any proposed terminology relating to ethical/socially responsible/sustainable business.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. CSR is “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (Commission of the European Communities 2001, p. 8).

  2. We are viewing CSP along the lines of Wood’s (1991, p. 693) definition: ‘a business organisation’s configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationships.’

  3. Griffin and Mahon (1997) found 33 research studies indicating a positive relationship between CSP and CFP, 20 that found a negative relationship and 9 with no relationship or which were inconclusive, whereas Roman et al. (1999) report 33 studies that suggest a positive CSP–CFP relationship, 5 studies that show a negative relationship and 14 with no relationship or which were inconclusive.

  4. In preparation for a paper (Harwood and Baden 2009) we looked up the frequency of terms such as CSR and ‘sustainable’ on the ISI Web of Knowledge database. We found that in many cases the term ‘sustainable’ was being used to mean business survival rather than in its environmental or social sense.

  5. It is worth noting that these were managers’ perceptions only, in fact, as discussed by Kreps and Monin (2011), evidence points to managers’ fears being unjustified, with open expression of ethical concerns being generally associated with positive outcomes for both the manager and the organisation.

  6. The term ‘Organisational Integrity’ arose from a discussion between one of the authors and Prof. Roderick Martin (Centre for Policy Studies at the Central European University, Hungary) at the BAM conference 2011. Others have drawn on the concept of ‘organisational integrity’ (Kayes et al. 2007; Paine 1994).

Abbreviations

CFP:

Corporate financial performance

CSP:

Corporate social performance

CSR:

Corporate social responsibility

MNCs:

Multinational corporations

NGOs:

Non-governmental organisations

OSR:

Organisational social responsibility

SD:

Sustainable development

SMEs:

Small and medium-sized enterprises

References

  • Acar, W., Aupperle, K. E., & Lowy, R. M. (2001). An empirical exploration of measures of social responsibility across the spectrum of organizational types. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(1), 26–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. (2005). A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, 57(1), 8–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baden, D., & I. A. Harwood. (2010). Corporate social responsibility on trial. In BAM, Sheffield.

  • Baden, D. A., Harwood, I. A., & Woodward, D. G. (2009). The effect of buyer pressure on suppliers in SMEs to demonstrate CSR practices: An added incentive or counter productive? European Management Journal, 27(6), 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baden, D., Harwood, I. A., & Woodward, D. G. (2011). The effects of procurement policies on ‘downstream’ corporate social responsibility activity: Content-analytic insights into the views and actions of SME owner-managers. International Small Business Journal, 29(3), 259–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bicchieri, C. (1988). Should a scientist abstain from metaphor? In A. Klamer, D. N. McCloskey, & R. M. Solow (Eds.), The consequences of economic rhetoric (pp. 110–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, F. B., & Waters, J. A. (1989). The moral muteness of managers. California Management Review, 32(1), 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • BITC. (2003). Engaging SMEs in community and social issues. London: Business in the Community.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J. R. (1992). Morality in practice: Dees, Crampton, and Brer Rabbit on a problem of applied ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogenhold, D. (2004). Entrepreneurship: Multiple meanings and consequences. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 4(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondy, K., J. Moon, & D. Matten. (2012) An institution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multi-national corporations (MNCs): Form and implications. Journal of Business Ethics.

  • Brooks, S. (2010). CSR and the straitjacket of economic rationality. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 11(12), 604–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: Changing relationships between companies and NGOs. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2000). Moral awareness in business organizations: Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 53(7), 981–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1994). Social issues in management research: Experts’ views, analysis and commentary. Business & Society, 33, 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chell, E. (2008). The entrepreneurial personality: A social construction. Routledge: The Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, C. (1987). Slick Ems, glick Ems, Christmas trees and Cookie cutters—Nuclear language and how we learned to pat the bomb. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 43(5), 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corporate Watch (Ed.). (2006). What’s wrong with corporate social responsibility? Corporate Watch Report 2006.

  • Crook, C. (2005). The good company. The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/3555212. Accessed 18 Sep 2012.

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). When ethics travel: The promise and peril of global business ethics. California Management Review, 41(4), 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation—Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. (1985). Political language and political reality. PS, 18(1), 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment Agency. (2003). SME-nvironment 2003. Environment Agency—Net-regs.

  • European Commission. (2002). European SMEs and Social and Environmental Responsibility. Observatory of European SMEs.

  • Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futerra. (2007). Words that sell, challenging the language of sustainability. Futerra Sustainability Communications.

  • Garriga, E., & Mele, D. N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, M. (2010). Giving voice to values. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R. A., & Thompson, K. R. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 266–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E., & Holloran, T. E. (1994). In defense of a paradox. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 423–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, I. A., & D. Baden. (2009). Corporate social responsibility—What’s in a name? In BAM, Brighton.

  • Herring, H. (2006). Energy efficiency—A critical view. Energy, 31(1), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision-making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang Y. C., & Wood D. J. (1995) Before-profit corporate social responsibility: turning the economic paradigm upside-down. In: Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society. Vienna, Austria: IABS.

  • Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64(6), 843–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayes, D. C., Stirling, D., & Nielsen, T. M. (2007). Building organizational integrity. Business Horizons, 50, 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, S. (2010). Using a stakeholder thinking approach to investigate barriers to the implementation of sustainable development. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1977). The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. Journal of Management Studies, 14, 34–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M. (1953). The general theory of employment, interest and money. Ney York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimerling, J. (2001). The human face of petroleum: Sustainable development in Amazonia? RECIEL, 10, 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, T. A., & Monin, B. (2011). Doing well by doing good? Ambivalent moral framing in organizations. In B. M. Staw & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 31, pp. 99–123). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, V., Samuels, S., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputation vs. situational la bels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1175–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, L. (1999). Forest cleansing: Racial oppression in scientific nature conservation. Corner House Briefing 13.

  • Margolis, J., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Boston: Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPhail, K. (2001). The other objective of ethics education: Re-humanising the accounting profession—A study of ethics education in law, engineering, medicine and accountancy. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellahi, K., & Wood, G. (2003). The role and potential of stakeholders in “Hollow Participation”: Conventional stakeholder theory and institutionalist alternatives. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moezzi, M. (1998). The predicament of efficiency (pp. 4.273–4.282). Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (1999). Tinged shareholder theory: Or what’s so special about stakeholders? Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(2), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijhof, A. H. J., & Jeurissen, R. J. M. (2010). The glass ceiling of corporate social responsibility: Consequences of a business case approach towards CSR. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(11/12), 618–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, R. B. (1988). Sustainable Development—A co-evolutionary view. Futures, 20(6), 606–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 613–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, T. (1988). The politics of sustainability. In K. Turner (Ed.), Sustainable environmental management: Principle and practice (pp. 37–39). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language. Horizon, 13(76), 252–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterman, P. (1999). Securing prosperity: How the American labor market has changed and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 118–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkes, C., Scully, J., & Anson, S. (2010). CSR and the “undeserving”: A role for the state, civil society and business? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(11/12), 697–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, D. P., & Jones, T. M. (1995). An agent morality view of business policy. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 22–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, B. D. (2004). “Sustainability” as a dialogue of values: Challenges to the sociology of development. Sociological Inquiry, 74(1), 50–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): An oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development, 13(4), 212–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roddick, A. (2002). Interview with Anita Roddick, conducted by N. M. Pless, London, February 11. Retrieved 18 Nov, 2011, from http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79p/.

  • Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S., & Agle, B. R. (1999). The relationship between social and financial performance: Repainting a portrait. Business and Society, 38(1), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D. A. (2002). Public–private partnerships. In C. Kirkpatrick, R. Clarke, & C. Polidano (Eds.), Handbook on development policy and management (pp. 381–388). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. L. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 506–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi, L. (2005). Hardwired behavior: What neuroscience reveals about morality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, A. (2010). Managing business ethics. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utting, P. (2000). Business responsibility for sustainable development. Geneva: United Nations research Institute for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED. (1987). Our common future: World Commission on Environment and Development. Bruntland Commission. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Weizsäcker, E. U. V., Young, O. R., Finger, M., & Beisheim, M. (2005). Limits to privatization: How to avoid too much of a good thing, a report to the club of Rome. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S., & M. T. Vargas. (2005). Beyond markets: Why terminology matters. Katoomba Group’s Ecosystem Marketplace. http://ecosystemmarketplace.net/pages/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southampton Management School, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

    Denise Baden & Ian A. Harwood

Authors
  1. Denise Baden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian A. Harwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denise Baden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baden, D., Harwood, I.A. Terminology Matters: A Critical Exploration of Corporate Social Responsibility Terms. J Bus Ethics 116, 615–627 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1498-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1498-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation