You are on page 1of 48


47-2007 ICCSR Research Paper Series ISSN 1479-5124


Jean-Pascal Gond & Dirk Matten

Research Paper Series International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility ISSN 1479-5124 Editor: Jean-Pascal Gond International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility Nottingham University Business School Nottingham University Jubilee Campus Wollaton Road Nottingham NG8 1BB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 115 951 4781 Fax: +44 (0) 115 84 68074 Email:


Jean-Pascal GOND Dirk MATTEN

This paper moves Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) research beyond a businesscentred and instrumental model by conceptualizing the inherently pluralistic nature of societally embedded CSR. conceptualizations of CSR. It argues that the major social sciences have competing views of the corporation-society interface that inevitably result in multiple A pluralistic framework specifies four differentiated perspectives on CSR. We show how this framework can enhance contemporary CSR research and advance our understanding of the corporation-society interface. Key-words Corporate Social Responsibility Business-Society Interface Social Theory Theory-building Addresses for Correspondence Jean-Pascal Gond International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility University of Nottingham Business School Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK Tel: +44 (0) 115 951 4781 Fax: +44 (0) 115 84 68074 Email: Dirk Matten Hewlett-Packard Chair in Corporate Social Responsibility Schulich School of Business York University 4700 Keele Street Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada United Kingdom Tel: 416.736.2100 ext 20991 Fax: 416.736.5195 Email:

How corporations affect society is central to management scholarship and practice (Stern & Barley, 1996; Swanson, 1995; Walsh, Weber, & Margolis, 2003; Wood, 1991). Over the last five decades, the debate on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) dominates research on the interface of business and society. Despite the relative maturity of the field, however, scholars have yet to agree on a definition of its very core object of analysis (Carroll, 1999; Lockett, Moon, & Visser, 2006). Moreover, this literature is deeply divided about the very status of CSR itself and has been dominated by either proponents of social engagement of corporations, or their critics, who believe that such initiatives use corporate resources misguidedly (Margolis & Walsh, 2003: 271-274). This state of affairs in the CSR literature has been echoed in numerous reviews pointing to the many shortcomings of past CSR research. Critics stress the poor theoretical foundations of the CSR concept (Lockett et al., 2006; Margolis & Walsh, 2003); consistent lack of rigor in assessing empirical studies (McWilliams,

Siegel, & Wright, 2006; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Rowley & Berman, 2000; Ullmann, 1985); as well as weak explanations for dependent variables such as financial performance (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Vogel, 2005). These judgements echoed

previous calls for a more rigorous approach to CSR a recurrent exercise since Ullmanns (1985) characterization of CSR research as data in search of a theory (McWilliams et al., 2006; Rowley & Berman, 2000; Wood, 1991). In this paper we argue that the current limitations of the field lie in its limited conceptual appreciation of CSR as a social rather than just corporate phenomenon. Conspicuously, parallel to the palpable unrest with the extant CSR

literature, we have recently witnessed a number of new approaches to the field. For instance, Aguilera et al. (2007) argued in favour of a much broader multilevel framework conceptualizing CSR not only at the organizational, but most notably, also at the individual, national and international level. Similarly, Matten and Moon (2008)

have argued in favour of understanding CSR from the perspective of the broader cultural and institutional context of national environments and organzational fields. Scherer and Palazzo (2007) have also provided new theoretical perspectives by introducing the notion of CSR as a conceptualization of the political role of business in society. The key contribution of this paper lies in mapping out new conceptual space which allows scholars to take the debate on CSR further in three crucial steps. First, we demonstrate that, notwithstanding its merits and strong contribution, much of the management literature on CSR is limited due to a narrow understanding of CSR as a social phenomenon. Our approach starts from society and has the potential to re-establish the balance between business and society in the CSR field. Second, the framework distinguishes new research perspectives, categorizes emerging

approaches to the field (such as the three examples discussed above), and maps out key trajectories of how to develop CSR research in the coming years. Our paper

then, rather than just agonizing about shortcomings and limitations of the current debate recognizes the merits and contribution of the extant literature. Concurrently, we provide a distinct new framework that paves the way towards a richer, more theoretically robust and empirically relevant research agenda on CSR. Third, we

demonstrate how the framewok can enhance a pluralistic approach to CSR, develop areas neglected in past research, and move CSR research beyond its present focus on a functionalist understanding of the business and society interface. In search of moving the CSR debate forward, many recent reviewers have suggested abandoning the CSR concept (Rowley & Berman, 2000). They suggest

building on an alternative body of literature such as the resource based view of the firm (e.g., McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006), or by focusing mainly on stakeholder theory (e.g., Margolis & Walsh, 2003). Some researchers also suggest moving

beyond the global financial impact of CSR because they believe it represents a

theoretically sterile effort (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Vogel, 2005).

For us, this

would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Though we share the scepticism surrounding the theoretical value of CSR we are, however, reluctant to abandon it. First, because analyzing the business/society interface forms the basis of CSR literature (Hinings & Greenwood, 2002; Stern & Barley, 1996; Walsh & Weber, 2002; Walsh et al., 2003). Second, CSR lends itself well to addressing how corporations impact society, not only because of a lack of alternative concepts, but also because it is diffused globally throughout todays business world. We argue that previous CSR research largely overlooked its profound sociological nature, which explains most of the difficulties encountered in theory building and assessment. The paper is organized in the following way. The first section demonstrates

how the search for a unique, integrative, business-centric and instrumental model of CSR has obscured its sociological and, in fact, pluralistic nature. Secondly, it offers an alternative approach to address these problems: we reverse the past perspective on CSR by starting from society and by considering diverse approaches to the interface. Thirdly, it provides a new pluralistic CSR framework articulating four

differentiated perspectives: CSR as social function, CSR as a power relationship, CSR as a cultural product and CSR as a socio-cognitive construction. Fourthly, it

demonstrates how this framework can enhance future CSR research by improving emerging developments, generating robust research perspectives and by identifying methodological mismatches in CSR research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for research on CSR, and CSR management.


Our critique of CSR literature focuses on two fundamental shortcomings: first, the CSR literature has never overcome a narrow, business-centric perspective and second, it has been constrained by a limited, functionalist perspective. We address each criticism.

A business-centric approach to the field So far, CSR has focused more on the Corporation than the Society, and most models and theories have focused on the organizational level, rather than interorganizational, national or international levels of analyses (Aguilera et al., 2007). Since the 1970s, several significant publications have identified CSR (Heald, 1970, Preston, 1975; Walsh et al., 2003) as an important approach to analyze the reciprocal influences of business and society. Conspicuously, Berg and Zalds (1978) literature review dedicated to relationships between business and society published in the Annual Review of Sociology, does not even mention CSR. Beyond social

science parochialism, this highlights a persistent business-centric orientation in CSR literature. As early as 1975, Preston argued that this trend explained why economists ignored the many works on CSR, published since Bowens seminal book (p. 446). Moreover, it explained his own scepticism after he reviewed all the CSR literature published between 1953 and 1975: A careful review of Bowens book leaves one impressed and somewhat dismayed that so little conceptual and analytical progress has been made in the intervening years. (Preston, 1975: 435). Regarding the stagnation of CSR research during this period, he concluded: The answer, I think, is that serious analysis of the relationship requires rigorous and comprehensive conceptions of both the corporation and society; and these conceptions must be articulated in comparable or at least translatable terms. [] Thus, it appears we need to move on a rather different, and substantially expanded, conception of both the corporation and society if we are to make significant analytical or practical progress. (1975: 446, original emphasis).

We argue that Prestons (1975) diagnosis remains largely valid and may explain most contemporary scepticism surrounding CSR research (Lockett et al., 2006; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Rowley & Berman, 2000). Most widely used definitions of CSR or Corporate Social Performance (CSP) place the corporation at the core of their approach (Carroll, 1979, 1999; Wood, 1991). For instance, stakeholder theory is often used to model CSR (Clarkson,

1995; Wood & Jones, 1995). Some scholars have criticized it as presenting a very business-centric (and dyadic) view of the firm (Rowley, 1997), and few of these papers have adopted the stakeholders point of view. Even Margolis and Walshs (2003) renewed research agenda for CSR focuses on the organizational level of analysis. Such an evolution represents an important move away from the original view of social responsibility developed by economists like John M. Clark (1916) or Howard R. Bowen (1953) who were interested in societal regulation of economic behaviour (Marens, 2004). For Bowen (1953) social responsibility was a potential third way of managing privately social issues (pp. 8-21) lying somewhere between a pure laissezfaire system and state regulation. Moreover, he assessed the value of social

responsibility against its potential to create welfare for the whole society and not only for corporations. This shift from a macro-social to a micro-social and

organizational perspective meant scholars no longer used CSR to contribute to the social mandate of organization theory by analyzing how corporations influence society (Hinings & Greenwood, 2002; Stern & Barley, 1996). Indeed, Stern and Barley, (1996:155) suggest that the dominance of functionalism in organization and management research has reinforced this trend.

A functionalist orientation Scherer and Palazzo (2007) convincingly argue that, from both methodological and research orientations, business and society literature is rooted in an underlying functionalist perspective. Methodologically, a positivist framework has driven

business and society research. Natural Science inspired this framework, which is defined as functionalist (Burrell & Morgan, 1979), or positivistic (Donaldson, 1996). It identifies causal relationships, and empirical testability that helps predict given phenomena. Both theory building and empirical works use this epistemological ideal. Since the late 1970s, CSR theory-builders have sought a measurable unified and integrative concept. The works on CSP illustrate this theoretical tendency (Carroll, 1979; Swanson, 1999; Wood, 1991). The lessening pre-eminence of this concept in contemporary academic publications (Bakker, Groenewegen, & Hond, 2005)

demonstrates how difficult it has been to fit consensual and measurable constructs with positivists expectations. Positivist methodology directly inspires most empirical studies investigating the relationship between social and financial performance. Typically, scholars hypothesize and examine the causal relationship between CSP and financial performance (Hillman & Keim, 2001; Waddock & Graves, 1997) in order to infer general laws (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). This perspective reflects primarily

technical interests (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007) and, paradoxically, helped immunize CSR research from the normative considerations it originally sought to integrate (Swanson, 1995, 1999). This congruency with the parallel resurgence of an

instrumental view on CSR partially explains the success of this approach. CSRs progressive focus on economic justifications of social initiatives eventually confirmed a global functionalist orientation (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). As Vogel ironically states virtually all contemporary literature on CSR emphasizes its link to corporate profitability, and even an economist like Milton Friedman would object to most contemporary approaches of CSR (Vogel, 2005: 19).

Among managers, both the emphasis on profitability and rhetoric about the business case for CSR prevail (Vogel, 2005: 16-45). Similarly, more than 120 empirical

studies have investigated the relationship between social and financial performance (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky, Rynes & Schmidt, 2003). This view, sometimes labelled enlightened self-interest (Jensen, 2001), suggests that social responsibility primarily creates long-term value which maximizes financial performance (Friedman, 1970), and declines through practices such as cause-related marketing (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). Accordingly, CSR is not concerned with public issues (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007) and tends to reduce CSR to the status of a mere marketing exercise (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001). A growing number of scholars embrace this view of CSR (Jensen, 2001; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; McWilliams et al., 2006; Porter & Kramer, 2006). Increasingly, these three trends led the functionalist perspective to dominate research and ultimately to trap CSR in an approach that (1) considered corporations as the main unit of analysis; (2) searched for a unified and integrative measurable construct; and (3) sought to demonstrate that CSR increased financial performance. CSR theory building and research need to move beyond this functionalist view.


Starting from Society The starting point of our argument is the claim, that Business and Society is both the lowest common denominator and a suitable label for academic inquiry dedicated to CSR. Whatever model or concept (CSR per se, Corporate Social

Responsiveness, Corporate Citizenship or CSP), the distinctive features are their attempts to link interactions between the business world, and the surrounding society (Bowen, 1953; Garriga & Mel, 2004; Preston, 1975; Preston & Post, 1975; Wood, 1991; Margolis & Walsh, 2003). This is apparent in historical analyses of

social responsibility (Bowen, 1953; Carroll, 1999; Heald, 1970). For instance,

virtually all the definitions provided by Carroll (1999) captured some aspect of overlapping areas between business and society. What distinguishes this concept is its specific location at the business-society interface. Previous theoretical developments of CSR abandoned the macro-social

orientation as well as the society side of the equation to focus solely on the business side. We contend that in order to advance CSR conceptually, we need a theoretical approach that acknowledges multiple alternate perspectives on society. This could be done by recognizing alternatives to the dominant model of corporation and society commonly found in current CSR research.

Considering alternative paradigms We argued above that the lowest common denominator of all concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility attempts to describe phenomena located where business and society overlap. Thus, virtually all CSR concepts are sociological in that they depend on underlying concepts of society, even when they are strongly business-centred. Implicit concepts of society link to sociological paradigms that are themselves related to social theories (e.g., Functionalism, Marxism). These societal concepts are political to the extent that they frame representations of what should be the main role of a business in society. Representations of corporate and society interfaces contain different embedded normative views of how to manage or to govern corporations which are rooted in political attitudes (Tetlock, 2000). Because every sociological paradigm may imply a distinct concept of CSR, we need many concepts of CSR. Because many social theory and sociological paradigms describe corporationsociety interfaces, we apply a principle of minimal required variety (Ashby, 1956) and use a simple framework to account for minimal diversity among social worlds and organizational functioning. Burrell and Morgans (1979) typology of sociological

paradigms and organizational forms offers a suitable heuristic to conceptualize alternative businesses (made of organizations) and society interfaces, and

consequently the pluralistic nature of CSR (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Lewis & Grimes, 1999). According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), social science paradigms represent two distinct dimensions: (1) an epistemological and methodological axis opposing objective to subjective views of science and reflecting fundamental concepts of Social Science; and (2) an underlying theory of society, opposing order (the sociology of regulation) to conflict (the sociology of radical change). We use original opposites loosely to analyze globally functionalist CSR literature. Consequently, rather than

using radical opposites to delineate incommensurable areas of research (Burrell & Morgan, 1979), we use a continuum (Gioia & Pitre, 1990: 592; Lewis & Grimes, 1999). We interpret data as trends rather than absolute positions in order to address the following questions: to what level do CSR models or concepts focus on change or stability? To what level are they oriented toward subjectivity or objectivity? Our

goal is to capture diverse research and to explain potential opposition between CSRs competing models and concepts, in order to clarify theory-building logics and to generate new developments. We do not depict CSR from any epistemological

position(s) (Jones, 1996), and the typology is a heuristic tool to clarify positions between CSR approaches rather than to posit the models into their own sociological backgrounds. This approach to the typology differs from previous ones (Lewis & Grimes, 1999) but respects Burrell and Morgans framework as a heuristic device allowing one to [] identify embryonic theories and anticipate potential lines of

development (1979: xii). That interpretation is rooted in a tradition of successive rearrangements (Astley & Van de Ven, 1983; Rao & Pasmore, 1989) and addressed criticisms opposed to this framework (Deetz, 1996). accounts for differences within the CSR literature In this paper, the typology and draws attention to


underdeveloped or marginalized areas of research. Our main research objective is to stimulate theory building in unestablished areas by exploring trends within functionalist literature. Figure 1 illustrates how the framework acts as a compass to highlight trends and possible alternative research perspectives.

FIGURE 1. Burrell and Morgan (1979)'s Framework as a Heuristic Tool

Original framework (Burrell and Morgan, 1979)

Radical change

Radical Humanism

Radical Structuralism




Functionalism CSR literature

Orientation toward Change Regulation Orientation toward Subjectivity Orientation toward Objectivity Adapted framework to investigate less functionalist trends in the CSR literature

Orientation toward Regulation



The framework resulting from Burrell and Morgans (1979) heuristic provides a pluralistic perspective on CSR that characterizes four research orientations, each embedded within a specific concept of the corporation-society interface.

FIGURE 2. Overview of the Pluralistic CSR Framework


CSR as a sociocognitive construction Constructivist view of the Corporation and Society

CSR as a power relationship

Socio-political view of the Corporation and Society


CSR as a cultural product

Culturalist view of the Corporation and Society Interface

CSR as a social function

Functionalist view of the Corporation and Society



Figure 2 shows four perspectives of the corporation-society interface: 1) CSR as a social function embedded in a functionalist view; 2) CSR as a power relationship embedded in a socio-political view; 3) CSR as cultural product embedded in a culturalist view; and 4) CSR as a socio-cognitive construction embedded in a constructionist view. Table 1 shows these four perspectives of CSR and the

corresponding Corporation-Society Interface. 12

TABLE 1. Dimensions of the CSR Pluralistic Framework

CSR Perspective CorporationSociety Interface (model and key words) CSR as a Social Function Functionalist view of the Corporation and Society Interface Interpenetrating Systems Stability, Regulation, Goals Integration How and why can Society and Business pacifically coexist? Why and how can benefit from each other? CSR as a regulative function creating ultimately the integration of goals between corporations and society Objectivity e.g., Explaining CSR (positive) impact and CSR determinants Stability e.g., CSR is taken-forgranted and maintains the C-S status quo CSR as a Power Relationship Socio-political view of the Corporation and Society Interface Power Relationships Struggle, Domination, Power, Goals Divergence How and why can Corporations influence by Society? How and why can Society influence or dominate Corporations? CSR as crystallized power relationships between corporations and society / CSR as a way to increase or to legitimize actors power Objectivity e.g., Explaining the real political objectives behind CSR Change e.g., CSR reflects changing social forces at the C-S interface CSR as a Cultural Product Culturalist view of the Corporation and Society Interface Systems Infusing Values Values, Organizational Culture, Context, Sensemaking How can Business integrate Societys values? How Society influence Corporate Social behaviours? CSR as a set of social representations and discourses reflecting local organizational, institutional, national and cultural factors Subjectivity e.g., Understanding the national embeddedness of CSR Stability e.g., CSR offers a picture of the local view of the C-S interface CSR as a Socio-cognitive Construction Constructionist view of the Corporation and Society Interface Co-constructed Entities Negotiated Order, Performativity, CSR-asPractices How Business (Society) is framing and constructing Society (Business)? How is negotiated the C-S interface? CSR as a provisory compromise a negotiated order embodied within and supported by devices and practices crafted by social actors Subjectivity e.g., Understanding how CSR definition is socially constructed Change e.g., Negotiations of CSR content to reframe the C-S interface

Key questions about the Interface

Definition and role of CSR

Social Science Orientation

Political orientation

TABLE 1. Dimensions of the CSR Pluralistic Framework (continued)

CSR Perspective Empirical Illustration CSR as a Social Function Business Case for CSR in the managerial literature; Corporate programs focused on instrumental CSR High Dominant perspective CSR-1; CSR-2; CSP CSR as a Power Relationship NGOs vision of CSR as tool to reframe their relationships with corporations; Anti-CSR view; Corporations as political actors Low Emerging perspective Corporate Citizenship; Critical CSR (e.g., greenwashing) Banerjee (2003); Moon, Crane & Matten (2005); Jones (1996) CSR as a Cultural Product Differences in CSR definitions provided by various national governments and international institutions Low Emerging perspective Implicit CSR; Responsiveness as sensemaking Aguilera et al. (2007); Matten and Moon (2008); Swanson (1999) CSR as a Socio-cognitive Construction Emergence of the markets for virtue made by (and of) actors constructing tools or practices embodying CSR

Development Related theory and concepts Illustrative papers

Very low Perspective to explore CSR-as-practice CSR performativity Mitnick (2000); Rowley and Berman (2000); Pasquero (1996)

Carroll (1979); Wood (1991) Waddock and Graves (1997)


The Functionalist View of the Interface: CSR as a Social Function The functionalist view of the interface is framed according to the interpenetrating systems model theorized by Parsons (1966). According to this perspective, the

characteristics of the interface are integration, stability and regulation. The Iron Law of Responsibility (Davis, 1973, Wood, 1991) suggests that regulation takes place through societys control over business, which sometimes involves a social contract linking the society to the corporation (Davis, 1973; Donaldson & Dunfee, 1999). In this view, CSR concepts and theories (Preston & Post, 1975; Wood, 1991) depict corporations as satisfying societys social needs at a given period of time (Carroll, 1979; Tuzzolino & Armandi, 1981). Consequently, CSR can be defined as a social function, i.e. a regulative device to manage the interface and ultimately to merge the goals of society and of corporations. Such a perspective is oriented toward stability and does not allow significant social change (Jones, 1996: 34). It also

supports research about CSR as a taken-for-granted phenomenon, objectively assessable through available quantified data (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Ullmann, 1985). The core question underlying this stream of research is: How can business and society objectives converge and ultimately become integrated? This global question

suggests other research questions, such as: How can corporations behaviour benefit society? How could CSR improve simultaneously corporations efficiency and societys welfare? What role does CSR play in integrating and regulating the corporation and

society interface? This perspective strives to demonstrate how the goals of corporations and society converge, and actually represents the main framework in the existing CSR literature. It also explains the development of those three previously depicted tendencies

characterizing contemporary CSR research: (1) a business centric view of social

responsibility (Ackerman & Bauer, 1976; Carroll, 1979); (2) a positivist search for a unified, universal and integrative concept (Wood, 1991); and (3) an attempt to model and demonstrate a positive relationship between corporate social and financial performance (Waddock & Graves, 1997, Margolis & Walsh, 2003, Orlitzky et al., 2003). Notwithstanding the contribution of this research, they fail to deliver a strong theory of CSR (Bakker et al., 2005; Lockett et al., 2006). Furthermore, while these works have sometimes drawn on frameworks from related disciplines (e.g., economics or philosophy) they have rarely influenced other social sciences (Lockett et al., 2006). Corporations embrace a functionalist perspective of CSR in communications which they disperse (Economist, 2005). For instance, business associations, such as Business for Social Responsibility ( or CSR Europe (, promote CSR and detail the benefits of CSR on their websites. Many international institutions, such as the European Commission (EC, 2001, 2006) and consulting companies use CSR products and services to help societies and corporations reach their goals. Abundant literature on the Business Case for CSR (Vogel, 2005) reflects how businesses identify win-win situations where both society and corporations meet their goals.

The Socio-political View of the Interface: CSR as a Power Relationship The socio-political view of the corporation-society interface focuses on power relationships. Corporations and society fight continually to obtain control over resources and dictate the nature of the interface to the other entity. The corporation is like a

political arena (Morgan, 1980) that depends on resources from external groups (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), whereas approaches to society range from conflict functionalism to critical perspectives inspired by Marxism and the Frankfurt School (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). The interface is sometimes depicted as a political arena characterized by

struggles, goals conflicts and, ultimately, domination. Accordingly, CSR represents a power relationship, i.e. CSR reflects the capacity of various societal groups (e.g., NGOs, activists, government) to influence corporations. In this view, CSR represents the ultimate expression of corporate power over society, or is a way to legitimize this power toward society (Levitt, 1958). Consequently, CSR

reflects structural forces underlying the interface at a macro-social level, can potentially reform or alter corporate behaviour, and raises possibilities for social change. This

perspective can also be defined as objectivist because its goal is to discover the real or objective political or social agendas of a corporation (or society) hidden behind CSR. Generic questions underlying this perspective are: How can a Society

(Corporation) come to dominate a Corporation (Society)? How and why can corporations influence society? What underlying conflicts and power relationships structure interactions of corporations and society? Many other research questions can refine these questions. For example, How can corporations make stakeholders take

into account their will? How does CSR policy reflect social conflicts between managers and labour unions? Can corporations exercise their citizenship in the political sense of this term? What limits corporate power on society? With a few recent exceptions, CSR literature has largely ignored this perspective, and focused on either the political nature of social responsibility, or power games reflected or embodied by this notion. Scholars approaching CSR through the political perspective of citizenship (Matten & Crane, 2005; Moon, Crane & Matten, 2005) adopt the former approach. A discourse on social responsibility ultimately reflects changes in the interrelationships between corporations, societies and governments (Moon, 2003). Focusing on power games exposes the political side of corporate-stakeholder

relationships, and emphasizes power and how stakeholders affect corporate behaviours

(Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003).

Sceptically, CSR represents corporate power over

society (Levitt, 1953), is a superficial ceremonial exercise (Kuhn & Deetz, 2008). CSR is also an ideology that can silence actors who highlight real problems by attracting public attention to minor aspects of social issues (Jones, 1996), or it maintains illegitimate corporate exploitation of resources from economically under-developed countries (Banerjee, 2003). At best, CSR is window-dressing or greenwashing

(Deegan, 2002), often reduced to green rhetoric (Starkey & Crane, 2003). At worst, CSR is criticized for helping to maintain the capitalist status quo (Jones 1996). Empirically, many anti-corporate or anti-globalization movements or NGOs subscribe to the socio-political perspective underlying the CSR approach. Movies

and/or publications criticizing corporate attempts that use CSR to reconstruct their image (Bakan, 2004), or to manipulate political processes (Korten, 2001) also promote a socio-political perspective. Those critics are like contemporary Muckrakers who, in

the early twentieth century, grouped together Americans journalists who attempted to highlight and stigmatize Robber Barons misbehaviours and wrongdoing (Markham, 2002).

The Culturalist View of the Interface: CSR as a Cultural Product According to the culturalist perspective, culture is where values are exchanged and infused between the corporation and society (Strand, 1983). Corporation is viewed as a culture (Morgan 1980; Smircich, 1983) or a cultural system that relates to the cultural system of society. Corporations have varied levels of openness to their social and/or cultural environments and this affects how they integrate and reflect societies values. As a cultural product, CSR represents how desirable relationships between business and society reflect cultural, institutional, political and social environments.

Authors adopting an historical perspective (Bowen, 1953; Heald, 1970) find strong rationales for the embeddedness of CSR in the North-American cultural context. CSR expressions and meanings depend on their context and are not universal. The

definition of CSR is, therefore, subjective, i.e. subject to the local appreciation of its content. As cultural features of societies tend to be relatively stable, and focused on how things actually are rather than on how they should be, this approach tends toward stability. The questions dominating this approach have been: How can corporations integrate societys values? behaviours? How are societies values reflected in corporate social To what

The questions generate basic research questions, such as:

extent can corporate culture facilitate adoption of CSR at a corporate level? How can societies values spread throughout corporations? How and why does CSR content vary across national contexts? What national or cultural features affect CSR? Two emerging streams of research have bases in cultural premises. The first

approach focuses on the corporate level of analysis and describes how, in a supportive corporate culture, managerial choices and decision-making contain values (Swanson, 1995; 1999). These models build on functionalist approaches, complemented by a

subjective approach, which reintegrates ethical and deontological considerations, and addresses how employees will react to principles of social responsibility (Swanson, 1995). This research emphasizes sense making and sustainability in adopting CSR in the corporation (Basu & Palazzo, 2008; Swanson, 1999). The second approach focuses on a macro-social level of analysis and investigates cultural and national embeddedness of CSR. Such works map cross-national

differences in CSR definitions and approaches (Habisch, Jonker, Wegner & Schmidpeter, 2004), analyze institutional factors that influence CSR nationally, and determine the

institutional component of CSR (Aguilera et al., 2007; Campbell, 2007). capture national or cultural underpinnings of CSR.


For instance, Matten and Moon

(2008) contrast explicit social issues management through CSR policies with implicit social issues management that relies on institutional processes (e.g., legal framework). The explicit CSR characterizes the American perspective on this concept, whereas the implicit CSR reflects European approaches. European consultation on Corporate Social Responsibility, launched in 2001, offers the best evidence regarding differences in national perspectives on CSR. Governments from many European countries replied to the original document of the European Commission (EC, 2001) with contrasting views on CSR that reflected their national backgrounds. For example, French and Italian governments stressed the need for legal frameworks, whereas the British advocated a voluntary approach and perceived CSR as a way to avoid direct regulation.

The Constructionist View of the Interface: CSR as a Socio-Cognitive Construction The constructionist view of the corporation-society interface stresses subjectivity and acknowledges social representations, values and beliefs between both entities. It also acknowledges social change in restructuring the interface, and the social realities embedded in a changing corporate world where people construct and frame their relationships with corporations. The corporation-society interface is where entities try to construct or define other entities characterized by flows, or the interaction of two brains (Morgan, 1980). It is where corporations and societies actors (individual or

collective) strive to influence and/or structure the interface.

In this view, CSR is a socio-cognitive construction from corporation and society, involving complex processes where each side tries to define the interface and frame the nature of the relationship. CSR is a negotiated order, embodied and supported by

social responsibility devices crafted by various actors (e.g., government, NGOs, corporations, associations, CSR professionals). The negotiated order of CSR is subject to change, and is never reified or taken-for-granted, as it is a changing social arrangement. At best, it represents a stabilised compromise about mutually and legitimately acceptable rules of interaction between society and business. Accordingly, CSR is a process of a social construction where actors attempt to frame and define its content (Latour, 2005). Two generic questions underlie this perspective: construct Society (and vice versa)? How does business frame and

Through what processes and practices are the Other research examines basic What

corporation-society interface negotiated and defined? questions such as:

How do stakeholders negotiate the content of CSR?

strategies, corporate or societal, control the content of CSR? effects on society identified and restrained by various actors?

How are corporations What tools or devices

frame the corporation-society interaction and make corporations internalize its effects? Who ultimately institutionalizes and elaborates CSR definitions, practices and devices? In spite of many calls to investigate the constructionist perspective of CSR, research has been scant (Pasquero, 1996). Rowley and Berman (2000) and Mitnick

(2000) invited researchers to consider the endogenous construction of CSR by stakeholders. They emphasized the contingent and contextual nature of CSR metrics, plus they acknowledged that one of the outcomes of stakeholder action is the possible redefinition of social performance (Rowley & Berman, 2000: 414). suggested refining stakeholder theory by relying on These works works


investigating longitudinal organizational fields (Hoffman, 1999) and/or by building on Berger and Luckmans (1966)s social construction of reality. Beaulieu and Pasquero (2002) provided a rare constructionist view of CSR in their study of Canadians Accountants Associations attempts to build legitimacy that identified successive negotiated compromises with stakeholders. The literature on CSR contains little about either the social construction of CSR, or strategies deployed to frame the content of CSR. Although the constructionist view on CSR may appear more abstract than the three other approaches, empirical evidence suggests that this framework captures emerging CSR practices. For example, in making CSR reports, managers implied they often develop their own definitions of their corporations social responsibility that they then embedded in their reports and corporate discourses. The archives of various

European Commission initiatives show how social construction processes defined CSR. In several EC reports (EC, 2001, 2006), CSR has been successively defined and redefined, because of pressure from governments, corporations and/or stakeholders. The European definition of CSR is consistent with the constructionist perspective, since the compromise emerged from a real socio-cognitive construction.


Our pluralistic framework can stimulate theory building by clarifying the underlying assumptions of CSR research, and by overcoming barriers that previously fostered functionalist reasoning. First, it provides a clear map of research emerging from CSR and highlights areas of investigation neglected due to the functionalist perspective (Deetz, 1996). Second, in this paper, Burrell and Morgans (1979) framework matches the notion of CSR as continuum rather than incommensurable paradigms (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Lewis & Grimes, 1999). Consequently, the pluralistic CSR framework can

generate new research questions by applying insights from adjacent perspectives. Third, this framework can revitalize CSR research by radicalizing the four perspectives, i.e. using them to re-bridge contemporary research to the four original paradigms presented by Burrell and Morgan (1979). Such a strategy would promote cooperative research with other social sciences such as anthropology, politics, international relations, or communication. Finally, the framework can help to address

methodological problems inherent in current and future CSR research. We detail how each of the four ways can facilitate pluralistic CSR research.

Pluralizing CSR research by developing each perspective Developing functionalist CSR research. Most research on CSR responds to the functional approach of the corporation-society interface and addresses three main topics. One line of research develops a strategic view on CSR, and considers CSR as a tool to improve corporate performance. It also reintroduces classical strategic

frameworks such as resource bases (Hillman & Keim, 2001; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; McWilliams et al., 2006; Porter & Kramer, 2006), or considers CSR as a marketing tool to enhance corporate reputations (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001). A second perspective refines the question of the financial impact of CSR by introducing contingencies that affect this link or by analyzing how CSR generates profitable stakeholders behaviours. So far, attention has mainly focused on consumers (Schuler & Cording, 2006) and future research could investigate how CSR affects employees (Rupp et al., 2006), shareholder or NGOs. A third line of research suggested by Margolis and Walsh (2003) would treat CSR as an independent variable rather than a dependent variable, and builds on organization theory to explain corporate investment in CSR.

Although functionalism offers numerous avenues for research, the underlying search for corporation-society goals convergence is a strong influence. This research continues to focus attention on micro-level or organizational level analyses and has systematically adopted the corporate viewpoint, in spite of numerous calls for more macro-social or societal perspectives (Hinings & Greenwood, 2002; Stern & Barley, 1996; Walsh et al., 2003). Studies that explain how to improve corporations collective impact on societies and adopt the society viewpoint could advance research on CSR as a social function. Developing socio-political CSR research. It is crucial that CSR research focuses on power relationships in order to ensure that CSR works for society and not only corporations. It is promising that recently scholars from critical management studies have turned from scepticism to engagement (Kuhn & Deetz, 2008). The

institutionalization of CSR through corporate practices, such as reporting, offers potential tools for groups to advance social or environment issues on corporate agendas. Previous research shows that this trend can ultimately undermine any reform potential in CSR (Shamir, 2005; Starkey & Crane, 2003). The trade-off between CSR diffusion and maintenance of CSR for reforming corporate practices, offers numerous avenues of research. For example, to what extent can groups defending crucial social interests and ordinarily silenced in the business world rely on CSR to legitimize their claims? Should activists groups frame their claims around CSR in order to mobilize Can CSR be a symbolic resource for secondary

around specific social issues?

stakeholders? Social movements theorists already have numerous frameworks, such as framing theory, that could help future investigations (Benford & Snow, 2000). A critical perspective can help reintegrate a concept of power in CSR research by in-depth investigation of power issues inherent in the deployment of CSR policies.

Although, numerous authors have used CSR to identify the risk of increasing corporate power over society (Bowen, 1953; Levitt, 1958; Friedman, 1970), no empirical studies have seriously documented this idea. Combining political theory frameworks of power with recently developed stakeholder theory (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003) could highlight how power games influence and shape corporate and public CSR agendas. Institutional theory and impression management suggest that organizations can use illegitimate means to acquire legitimacy (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992), thus, CSR could shield corporations from their detrimental actions. Accordingly, future research could investigate social responsibility programs engaged by organizations well known for their illegal, or deviant, behaviours. For instance, how terrorist organizations or mafias use socially responsible practices to build or maintain their reputation and legitimacy towards their stakeholders. Developing culturalist CSR research. The burgeoning culturalist view on CSR offers numerous research perspectives. Within the corporation, few researchers have investigated sense making or sense giving, how CSR is progressively adopted (Basu & Palazzo, 2008), or the logistics underpinning the construction of a socially responsible culture (Swanson, 1999). For example, how does CSR become part of corporate

culture? To what extent do corporate climates enable, or inhibit, the adoption of CSR? At the macrosocial level, the recent diffusion of CSR across cultures and nations offers an unprecedented opportunity to study the cultural differences underpinning CSR. Previous studies have documented how different countries approach CSR

(Habisch et al., 2004), how French and US consumers view of CSR differ (Maignan, 2001), and how corporations present their social responsibility differently across countries (Maignan & Ralston, 2002). example, even when previous Yet, many questions remain unanswered. explicitly identified cross-country For CSR


variations, we do not know why such variations occurred, or which cultural, national or institutional features were influential. Those questions could be explored by building on the variety of capitalism theory (Hall & Soskice, 2001) as suggested by Matten and Moon (2008). A third research perspective would integrate studies that would simultaneously investigate relationships and congruence between managerial, corporate and national and supra national representations of CSR. Aguilera et al. (2007) provide a framework integrating those perspectives that can support future empirical research. Developing constructionist CSR research. The socio-constructivist perspective on the corporation-society interface offers promising avenues for CSR research by using rarely-used theoretical lenses. The socio-cognitive perspective could address questions raised by the recent emergence of markets for virtue (Vogel, 2005) and the establishment of a real CSR industry (Economist, 2005) that has new social norms or metrics to evaluate or support CSR reporting (Global Reporting Initiatives, SA 8000, ISO 14 001). For example, how have CSR entrepreneurs established markets for CSR? What processes have turned CSR from a taken-for-granted notion into mainstream business for financial analysts and top executives? Through what processes has CSR evolved and become marketable? The anthropology of markets allows researchers to investigate the social construction of markets (Callon, 1998) by making calculations a necessary condition to market construction. If morality, ethics, appreciation of responsibility, and

transparency are calculable, then markets for CSR can emerge. Djean, Gond and Leca (2004) show how measuring attributes of CSR by an entrepreneurial organization promoted Socially Responsible Investment market in France.

The socio-cognitive perspective invites researchers to move beyond uncritical CSR tools, such as databases provided by rating agencies (KLD in US, or EIRIS in UK) and suggests investigating how private organizations defined, developed and legitimized those CSR tools, practices and metrics. To date, it has been taken-for-granted that

such tools effectively assess CSR, but little is known about their construction, legitimization and actual use by managers or corporate actors. Emerging strategy-aspractice (Whittington, 2006) reintroduces those missing dimensions, while actornetwork theory offers insights for investigating the manufacturing of CSR tools and metrics (Latour, 2005). Those frameworks can help future research on the social

construction of CSR practices and tools. Finally, to understand and possibly reframe how real businesses incorporate CSR theories and concepts, one must acknowledge and investigate the socially constructed nature of CSR. Previous research defined the perfomativity of economics as the

capacity of economic theory to influence actual economies (Callon, 1998) and to generate self-fulfilling prophecies in the business world (Ferraro, Pfeffer & Sutton, 2005). Little is known about the performativity of CSR or business ethics. The sociocognitive view of CSR suggests further investigation into how CSR theory (such as the idea of a business case for CSR) influences beliefs and behaviours in real business contexts.

Pluralizing CSR research by bridging the perspectives Gioia and Pitre (1990) and Lewis and Grimes (1999) suggest building theories by bridging Burrell and Morgans (1979) paradigms. Paradigm bridging explores

overlapping and/or transition zones of two by two paradigms and is often used in organizational theory (Lewis & Grimes, 1999) in spite of criticism that it violates the

principle of paradigm incommensurability (Organization, 1988).

Our approach to the

original framework fits only partially with such an interpretation. Indeed, the underlying bases of the corporation-society interface cannot be combined because they cannot be considered simultaneously through integrative and power lenses. However, from a theory-building perspective, it makes sense to combine two by two insights and results from previous research on the four perspectives on CSR. For instance, combining

insights of CSR as a social function with insights from it as a power relationship can generate research questions that rely both on the functionalist idea that CSR benefit corporations, and on the socio-political idea that CSR are manipulative tools. Table 2 shows how new research questions evolve by combining two by two insights and perspectives.

TABLE 2. Pluralizing CSR research by bridging perspectives

Crossed perspectives on CSR CSR as a social function and CSR as a power relationship Approach to CSR Example of research questions based on CSR perspectives bridging To what extent is the manipulation of stakeholders through symbolic CSR more beneficial for corporations than substantive CSR efforts? Does the strategic use of CSR improve societys perceptions of corporations?

CSR is considered both as regulating tool aiming at improving corporate performance and as a way for corporation and society to influence each other CSR is considered both as a product of representations influenced by the cultural context and as a tool to integrate corporations and societys objectives CSR is considered both as a culturally embedded concept and as socially constructed through deliberate and emerging actors strategies

CSR as a social function and CSR as a cultural product

To what extent is the CSP-CFP relationship contingent to national and cultural context? What features of national business systems do affect CSR strategies? Are specific types of organizational cultures more able to sustain economically beneficial forms of CSR? How CSR concepts and practices have been exported from the American cultural towards European, African and Asian cultures? How actors are mobilizing strategically artefacts and institutionalized myths from their own cultural context to develop CSR markets? To what extent is the construction of CSR practices dependent from the cultural context?

CSR as a cultural product and CSR as socio-cognitive construction

SR as a sociocognitive construction and CSR as a power relationship

CSR is considered both as resulting from actors actions and as a way for actors to increase their power

How power games are playing in the construction of a legitimate definition of CSR between a corporation and its stakeholders? To what extent actors providing CSR metrics and management tools increasing their power through that activity?

Pluralizing CSR research by moving beyond functionalism Ultimately, our framework challenges the CSR debate to move beyond functionalist reasoning. We have provided a map of existing CSR literature that we argue is mainly bound by functionalist interpretations of the business-society interface (the lower right quadrant of Figure 1). We map some avenues of future research that would develop the business-society literature and thus the debate on CSR beyond the limits of functionalism where it is currently trapped. Figure 3 provides an overview of promising trajectories of future research. FIGURE 3. Moving CSR beyond functionalism with the pluralistic CSR framework

Radical humanist perspective on CSR

Radical structuralist perspective on CSR

Interpretativist perspective on CSR

CSR as a sociocognitive

CSR as a power relationship

CSR as a cultural product

CSR as a social function

Legend: The dotted arrows ( pluralistic CSR research

) indicate suggested research trajectories for

As a power relationship, CSR relates naturally to the original paradigm of radical structuralism. In fact, researchers from critical management, who are now

investigating CSR, borrowed their intellectual tools directly from this paradigm (Jones, 1996). Furthermore, the development of a critical perspective on CSR, together with insights from the constructivist view, helps link CSR to the radical humanist paradigm. For instance, empirical studies highlight the dynamics of power relationships

underpinning the development of CSR tools and metrics.

Future work can build on

critical sociology, especially the works of authors such as Horkheimer, Marcuse, or Foucault, to develop a radical humanist CSR agenda. The epistemological foundations of the culturalist perspective can easily be expanded to develop an interpretative approach to CSR. This approach can build directly on symbolic interactionism or

ethnomethodology to investigate how various stakeholders groups elaborate social representations of CSR and act in accordance with to these representations. Such an approach also benefits from the constructionist perspective that highlights the dynamics of CSR practice and the role of objects in actors representations. Finally, the logic of radicalization shows how to move CSR research beyond the borders of the functionalist perspective by collaborating with other disciplines. For

example, communication science, ethnography and constructivist sociology could expand research about an interpretative view on CSR, while political science could develop the radical structuralist and radical humanist approaches to CSR.

Pluralizing CSR research methods Finally, a pluralistic framework can both improve the methodological foundations of CSR research and suggest other methods. The framework invites authors to clarify their positions and adopt appropriate research methods. As the majority of previous

works took the functionalist perspective, there was an obvious fit between methods and theory building. However, emerging trends and the logic of radicalization suggest that researchers carefully match methodological, epistemological and theoretical levels of analyses. Gioia and Pitre (1990) and Lewis and Grimes (1999) suggested research is anchored in a given social science paradigm. The radicalization approach suggests that CSR research relies on methods from Burrell and Morgans (1979) original paradigms. Thus, CSR research can use methods rarely used, while collaborating with other social scientists (in sociology, political science or ethnography). The framework provides different methodological implications. First, it can assess how well CSR theory building matches methodologies and epistemologies in a given social science paradigm. Second, according to the logic of radicalization it can help

import new methodologies by building strong relationships with original paradigms. Third, the bridging perspective allows hybridization of methodologies. Fourth, it can build theories, regardless of methodology.


Implications for research A pluralistic CSR framework effectively supports pluralistic CSR research by recognizing numerous alternatives and advancing these views. It also generates

research that combines insights, or radicalizes their premises in order to develop dialogues with other social sciences. This framework is not integrative, like previous

CSR models such as Corporate Social Performance (Carroll, 1979; Swanson, 1999; Wood, 1991), since it does not reconcile distinct streams of CSR research. This

framework explicitly clarifies the corporation-society interface and it underlying premises, whereas past research was implicit. The new framework provides

alternatives that will support future theoretical and empirical developments, and move

CSR knowledge beyond its continuing state of emergence (Lockett et al., 2006: 133). Due to its essentially contested nature, CSR research will attract debates and controversies (Moon, 2003). The proposed framework highlights these controversies

but does not capture all the complexities and contradictions of CSR. Indeed, one of the main limitations of the pluralistic CSR framework lies in reducing its complexity by describing only four alternatives at the corporation-society interface. Building on a preexisting and already validated framework offers many advantages, but also needs to be balanced with the drastic reduction in complexity inherent in a two by two matrix. Future research can address this limitation by investigating the metaphors that underlie actual representations of the corporation-society interface. The pluralistic framework

could easily articulate these metaphors to the four perspectives on CSR (Morgan, 1980). Like previous bibliometric analyses (Bakker et al., 2005; Lockett et al., 2006; Walsh et al., 2006), future research can systematically code articles from CSR literature regarding trends and the influence of the four perspectives on CSR knowledge. Finally, this papers use of Burrell and Morgans (1979) framework completes the theory-building strategies, such as meta-triangulation that rely on this tool (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Lewis & Grimes, 1999). This research shows how this framework can defunctionalize literature, marked by debates and contradictions, and dominated by one social science paradigm. Creative adaptation of the framework, together with a return to the original matrix, can benefit other concepts and literature embedded in a given paradigm.

Implications for managers The pluralistic CSR framework has strong implications for both managerial

approaches to CSR and CSR management.

First, prescriptive management literature

often relies on an implicit functionalist view of CSR and tends to neglect its social and pluralistic underpinnings (Porter & Kramer, 2006, critically, Vogel, 2005). This makes it difficult for managers to understand the motivations of stakeholders or activists that appear economically irrational or illegitimate. The present framework corrects this

problem by viewing CSR as a social function that explicitly states managers beliefs concerning the corporation-society interface. For instance, for a given CSR issue,

researchers and managers can understand various perceptions of the problem by successively adopting the four views of the corporation-society interface. Second, the constructivist perspective invites systematic research of emerging CSR industries and markets, such as social audits, certification, CSR ratings, CSR consulting. Indeed, whereas calls for increasingly practical and relevant management research abound (Hodgkinson, Herriot, & Anderson, 2001), little is known about the relevancy of CSR, or the relationship between CSR theory and CSR practice. Future

researchers could build on the constructionist stream of research in order to study CSRas-practice and how practitioners of the new markets for virtue use CSR knowledge. Thus, CSR research can become a pragmatic science which aims to enlighten practitioners without comprising its academic rigour (Hodgkinson et al., 2001), or sacrificing its goal to improve both management practice and societys welfare (Marens, 2004).

Ackerman, R., & Bauer, R. 1976. Corporate social responsiveness: The modern dilemma. Virgina: Reston Publishing Company. Aguilera R., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 836-863. Ashby, W. R. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall. Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1983. Central Perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 245-273. Bakan, J. 2004. The Corporation. The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York: Free Press. de Bakker, G.A., Groenewegen, P., & den Hond, F. 2005. A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business and Society, 44: 283-317. Banerjee, B. 2003. Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24: 143-180. Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, (forthcoming). Beaulieu, S., & Pasquero, J. 2002. Reintroducing stakeholder dynamics in stakeholder thinking. A negociated-order perspective. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, and S. S. Rhaman (eds.) Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory, responsibility and engagement: 101-118. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 611-640. Berg, I., & Zald, M.N. 1978. Business and society. Annual Review of Sociology, 4:

115-143. Berger, P., & Luckman, T. 1966. The social construction of reality: A Treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1): 9-24. Bowen, H. R. 1953. The Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper and Row. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Newcastle: Athenaeum Press. Callon, M. 1998. Introduction: the embeddedness of economic markets in economics approach. In M. Callon (ed.) The Laws of the Markets: 1-57. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Campbell, J. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 946-967. Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497-505. Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility. Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38: 268-295. Clark, J. M. 1916. The changing basis of economic responsibility. Journal of Political Economy, 24: 209-229. Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20: 92-117.

Davis, K. 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Review, 2: 70-76. Deegan, C. 2002. Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15: 282-311. Deetz, S. 1996. Describing differences in approaches to organization science. Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7: 191208. Djean, F., Gond, J.-P., & Leca, B. 2004. Measuring the unmeasured: an institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emergent industry. Human Relations, 57(6): 740765. Donaldson, L. 1996. For positivist organization theory: Proving the hard core. London: Sage. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. 1999. Toward a unified conception of business ethcis: Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Review, 37: 414-446. Economist 2005. The good company. Survey on corporate social responsibility. January, 20. Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. 1992. Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: a marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 699-738. European Commission 2001. Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Green Paper of the European Commission. COM(2001) 366, July. European Commission 2006. Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs:

Making Europe a pole of excellence on CSR. New Communication of the European Commission. COM(2006) 136, March. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2005. Economic language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30: 824. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profit. The New York Times Magazine, September 13: 32-33, 122, 124, 126. Garriga, E., & Mel, D. 2004. Corporate social responsibility: Mapping the conceptual territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51-71. Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15: 584-602. Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. 2004. Corporate social responsibility across Europe. Berlin: Springer. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P.A. Hall and D. Soskice (eds.) Varieties of Capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage: pp. 1-68. New York: Oxford University Press. Heald, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business: Company and community, 1900-1970. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G.D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: Whats the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22: 125139. Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. 2002. Disconnects and consequences in organization theory? Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 411-421. Hodgkinson, G., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. 2001. Re-aligning the stakeholders in management research: lessons from industrial, work and organizational

psychology. British Journal of Management, 12: 41-48. Hoffman, A. J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 351-372. Jensen, M. C. 2001. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Corporate Applied Finance, 14: 8-21. Jones, M. T. 1996. Missing the forest for the trees. A critique of the social responsibility concept and discourse. Business and Society, 35: 7-41. Korten, D. C. 2001. When corporations rule the world. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. 2008. Critical theory and CSR: Can/Should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In: Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility: forthcoming. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-NetworkTheory. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Levitt, T. 1958. The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36: 41-50. Lewis , M. W., & Grimes, A. J. 1999. Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24: 672-690. Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 115-136. Maignan, I. 2001. Consumers perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A crosscultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30: 57-72. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. 2001. Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument

Concepts, evidence and research directions. European Journal of Marketing, 35: 457-484. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses' self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33: 497-514. Marens, R. 2004. Wobbling on a one-legged stool: The decline of American pluralism and the academic treatment of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2: 63-87. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives by business? Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268-305. Markham, J. W. 2002. A financial history of the United States. Vol. I. From Christopher Columbus to the Robber Barons (14921900). Armonk NY, M.E. Sharpe. Matten, D. & Moon, J. 2008. Implicit and Explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe. Academy of Management Review (forthcoming). Matten, D., & Crane, A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 166-179. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26: 117-127. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1-18 Mitnick, B. 2000. Commitment, revelation and the testament of belief: the metrics of measurement of CSP. Business and Society, 39: 419-465. Moon, J. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: An overview. In: International

Directory of Corporate Philanthropy, London, Europa Publications. Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. 2005. Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15: 427-451. Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 605-623. Organization 1988. 5(2), Special Issue. Orlitzky, M., Rynes, F. L., & Schmidt, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24: 103-441. Parsons, T. 1966. Societies. Evolutionary and comparative perspectives. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Pasquero, J. 1996. Stakeholder theory as a constructivist paradigm. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Association for Business and Society, San Diego, US. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2006. Strategy and society. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 12: 78-92. Preston, L. E. 1975. Corporation and society: the search for a paradigm. Journal of Economic Literature, 13: 434-454. Preston, L. E., &, Post, J. 1975. Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Rao, M. V. H., & Pasmore, W. A. 1989. Knowledge and interests in organization studies: A conflict of interpretations. Organization Studies, 10: 225-239.

Rowley, T. J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22: 887-910. Rowley, T. J., & Berman, S. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39: 397-418. Rowley, T. J., & Moldeveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interestand identity-based model of stakeholder mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28: 204-220. Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V. & Williams, C. A. 2006. Employees reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27: 537-543. Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. 2007. Towards a political conception of corporate responsibility business and society seen from an Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4) (in press). Schuler, D. A., & Cording, M. 2006. A Corporate social performance corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of Management Review, 31/3: 540-558. Shamir, R. 2005. Mind the gap: Commodifying corporate social responsibility. Symbolic Interaction, 28: 229-253. Smircich, L. 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 339-359. Starkey, K., & Crane, A. 2003. Toward green narrative: management and the evolutionary epic. Academy of Management Review, 28: 220-243. Stern, R. N., & Barley, S. R. 1996. Organizations and social systems: Organization theorys neglected mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 146162. Strand, R. 1983. A system paradigm of organizational adaptation to the social

environment. Academy of Management Review, 8: 90-97. Swanson, D. L. 1995. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the Corporate Social Performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20: 43-64. Swanson, D. L. 1999. Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24: 506-521. Tetlock, P. E. 2000. Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 293326. Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. 1981. A need-hierarchy framework for assessing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6: 21-28. Ullmann, A. 1985. Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10: 540-557. Vogel, D. 2005. The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washigton: Brookings institution Press. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 303-319. Walsh, J.P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. 2003. Social Issues and Management: Our Lost Cause Found. Journal of Management, 29: 859-882. Whittington, R. 2006. Completing the practice turn in strategy research: The work of strategizing and organizing: for a practice perspective. Organization Studies, 27(5): 613-634. Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16: 691-718.

Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. 1995. Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research in corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3: 229-267.

Research Paper Series International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility ISSN 1479-5124 Editor: Jean-Pascal Gond
The ICCSR Research Papers Series is intended as a first-hand outlet for research output of ICCSR. These include papers presented at symposiums and seminars, first drafts of papers intended for submission in journals and other reports on ongoing or completed research projects. The objective of the ICCSR Research Papers Series is twofold: First, there is a time goal: Given the quality of ICCSR publication, the targeted journals normally require large time spans between submission and publication. Consequently, the ICCSR Research Papers Series serves as a preliminary airing to working papers of ICCSR staff and affiliates which are intended for subsequent publication. By this, research output can be made available for a selected public which will not only establish ICCSRs lead in advancing and developing innovative research in CSR but will also open the opportunity to expose ideas to debate and peer scrutiny prior to submission and/or subsequent publication. Second, the ICCSR Research Papers Series offers the opportunity of publishing more extensive works of research than the usual space constraints of journals would normally allow. In particular, these papers will include research reports, data analysis, literature reviews, work by postgraduate students etc. which could serve as a primary data resource for further publications. Publication in the ICCSR Research Paper Series does not preclude publication in refereed journals. The ICCSR Research Papers Series consequently is interested in assuring high quality and broad visibility in the field. The quality aspect will be assured by establishing a process of peer review, which will normally include the Editor of the ICCSR Research Papers Series and one further academic in the field. In order to achieve a reasonable visibility the ICCSR Research Papers Series has full ISSN recognition and is listed in major library catalogues worldwide. All papers can also be downloaded at the ICCSR website. Published Papers
No. 01-2003 Wendy Chapple & Richard Harris Accounting for solid waste generation in measures of regional productivity growth No. 02-2003 Christine Coupland Corporate identities on the web: An exercise in the construction and deployment of morality No. 03-2003 David L. Owen Recent developments in European social and environmental reporting and auditing practice A critical evaluation and tentative prognosis No. 04-2003 Dirk Matten & Andrew Crane Corporate Citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization No. 05-2003 Karen Williams, Mike Geppert & Dirk Matten Challenges for the German model of employee relations in the era of globalization

No. 06-2003 Iain A. Davies & Andrew Crane Ethical Decision Making in Fair Trade Companies No. 07-2003 Robert J. Caruana Morality in consumption: Towards a sociological perspective No. 08-2003 Edd de Coverly, Lisa OMalley & Maurice Patterson Hidden mountain: The social avoidance of waste No. 09-2003 Eleanor Chambers, Wendy Chapple, Jeremy Moon & Michael Sullivan CSR in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting No. 10-2003 Anita Fernandez Young & Robert Young Corporate Social Responsibility: the effects of the Federal Corporate Sentencing Guidelines on a representative self-interested corporation No. 11-2003 Simon Ashby, Swee Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann Industry self-regulation: A game-theoretic typology of strategic voluntary compliance No. 12-2003 David A. Waldman, Donald Siegel & Mansour Javidan Transformational leadership and CSR: A meso level approach No. 13-2003 Jeremy Moon, Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society (2nd Edition) No. 14-2003 Anita Fernandez Young, Jeremy Moon & Robert Young The UK Corporate Social Responsibility consultancy industry: a phenomenological approach No. 15-2003 Andrew Crane In the company of spies: The ethics of industrial espionage No. 16-2004 Jan Jonker, Jacqueline Cramer and Angela van der Heijden Developing Meaning in Action: (Re)Constructing the Process of Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Companies No. 17-2004 Wendy Chapple, Catherine J. Morrison Paul & Richard Harris Manufacturing and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Cost Implications of Voluntary Waste Minimisation No. 18-2004 Brendan ODwyer Stakeholder Democracy: Challenges and Contributions from Accountancy No. 19-2004 James A. Fitchett Buyers be Wary: Marketing Stakeholder Values and the Consumer No. 20-2004 Jeremy Moon Government as a Driver of Corporate Social Responsibility: The UK in Comparative Perspective No. 21-2004 Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten Questioning the Domain of the Business Ethics Curriculum: Where the Law ends or Where it Starts? No. 22-2004 Jem Bendell Flags of inconvenience? The global compact and the future of United Nations No. 23-2004 David Owen and Brendan ODwyer Assurance Statement Quality in Environmental, Social and Sustainability Reporting: a Critical Evaluation of Leading Edge Practice No. 24-2004 Robert J. Caruana Morality in consumption: towards a multidisciplinary perspective No. 25-2004 Krista Bondy, Andy Crane & Laura Browne Doing the Business: A film series programmed by ICCSR in conjunction with Broadway Cinema No. 26-2004 Stanley Chapman Socially Responsible Supply Chains: Marks & Spencer in Historic Perspective

No. 27-2004 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility: Reporting Workplace Issues No. 28-2004 Jacqueline Cramer, Angela van der Heijden and Jan Jonker Corporate Social Responsibility: Balancing Between Thinking and Acting No. 29-2004 Dirk Matten and Jeremy Moon 'Implicit' and 'Explicit' CSR: A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe No. 30-2005 Nigel Roome and Jan Jonker Whistling in the Dark No. 31-2005 Christine Hemingway The Role of Personal Values in Corporate Social Entrepreneurship No. 32-2005 David Owen Corporate Social Reporting and Stakeholder Accountability The Missing Link No. 33-2005 David Owen CSR After Enron: A Role for the Academic Accounting Profession? No. 34-2006 Judy Muthuri, Jeremy Moon and Dirk Matten Employee Volunteering And The Creation Of Social Capital No. 35-2006 Jeremy Moon and Kate Grosser Best Practice on Gender Equality in the UK: Data, Drivers and Reporting Choices No. 36-2006 Amanda Ball Environmental Accounting as Workplace Activism No. 372006 Kenneth M. Amaeshi & Bongo Adi Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Utlish No. 38-2006 Aly Salama The ICCSR UK Environmental & Financial Dataset 1991-2002 No. 39-2006 Kenneth M Amaeshi, Bongo C Adi, Chris Ogbechie and Olufemi O Amao Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Nigeria: western mimicry or indigenous practices? No. 40-2006 Krista Bondy, Dirk Matten and Jeremy Moon MNC Codes of Conduct: CSR or Corporate Governance? No. 41-2006 Jan Jonker and Michel van Pijkeren In Search of Business Strategies for CSR No. 42-2006 Stephanos Anastasiadis Understanding corporate lobbying on its own terms No. 43-2006 Nahee Kang Analysing System Change: The Role of Institutional Complementarity in Corporate Governance No. 44-2006 M. Shahid Ebrahim and Ehsan Ahmed Cooperative Home Financing No. 45-2006 Nahee Kang A Critique of the Varieties of Capitalism Approach No. 46-2007 Kenneth Amaeshi, Onyeka Kingsley Osuji and Paul Nnodim Corporate Control and Accountability in supply chains of Multinational Corporations: Clarifications and Managerial Implications No. 47-2007 Jean-Pascal Gond & Dirk Matten Rethinking the Business-Society Interface: Beyond the Functionalist Trap