Abstract
As the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) literature has developed, it appears that a dominant paradigm has emerged. Both scholars who study CSR and those who write about its organizational application have largely converged on CSR as an organizational strategy issue. Viewing CSR as a matter of top-level strategy unwittingly links it to a particular conceptualization of organizational change—a top-down perspective. We suggest that the dominance of this traditional view of organizational change is limiting the study of CSR. Thus, we seek to increase awareness of an alternative model, one that complements the strategic view. Specifically, we describe a model of CSR organizational change that suggests two things. First we assert that significant change can be initiated at lower organizational levels as well as from the top. And second, we suggest that the change can be accomplished in small steps and involve only a portion of the organization, as opposed to an overarching organizational strategy. We present our employee-centered approach to CSR change as an addition to the traditional top-down view.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Academy of Management Review. Briarcliff Manor (NY): Academy of Management, Pace University. Vol. 32, No. 3, July 2007.
Anderson, R. C. (1998). Mid-course correction: Toward a sustainable enterprise: The interface model. White River Junction: Chelsea Green.
Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794–816.
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85–112). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich: JAI.
Bies, R. J., Bartunek, J. M., Fort, T. L., & Zald, M. N. (2007). Corporations as social change agents: individual, interpersonal, institutional, and environmental dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 788–793.
Brooks, M. (2008). It’s the Little Things That Count. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge: The MIT.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.
Greene, B. (2008). Politics and Control in Organizations: A Small Wins Approach to CSR. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Kleinrichert, D. (2007). Responsibility and Practice in Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Meyerson, D. E. (2001a). Tempered radicals: How people use difference to inspire change at work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Meyerson, D. E. (2001b). Radical change, the quiet way. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 92–100.
Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585–600.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–441.
Spector, R., & McCarthy, P. D. (1995). The nordstrom way: The inside story of America’s #1 customer service company. New York: Wiley.
Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49.
Weick, K. E. (1987). Substitutes for strategy. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge (pp. 221–233). Cambrige: Ballinger.
Weick, K. E. (1999). Sensemaking as an organizational dimension of global change. In J. Dutton & D. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational dimensions of global change: No limits to cooperation (pp. 39–56). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Malden: Blackwell.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Ann Connell for her helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nord, W.R., Fuller, S.R. Increasing Corporate Social Responsibility Through an Employee-centered Approach. Employ Respons Rights J 21, 279–290 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-009-9126-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-009-9126-2