The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5680.htm

The ethics of care as a CSR

perception in
determinant for stakeholder business
education
inclusion and CSR perception in
business education 217
Kévin André Received 21 April 2016
Accepted 16 May 2016
ESSEC Business School, Cergy, France

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to show that among business students, care ethics is a
determinant for corporate social responsibility (CSR) perception and stakeholder inclusion.
Design/methodology/approach – The research was conducted using a quantitative approach. The
population for this study consisted of students from a leading French business school.
Findings – Stakeholder inclusion is related to care ethics among students. CSR perception is related to
stakeholder perception. CSR perception is related to care ethics.
Research limitations/implications – Population sampled has cultural and curricula specificities.
Further research should extend the findings to other populations.
Practical implications – If business schools want their students to implement CSR when they later
become managers, they should build a bridge in the curriculum between business ethics education
based on the care theory (“educare”) and CSR teaching.
Originality/value – Empirical exploration of the relationship between teaching CSR and teaching
care ethics has not been undertaken. Relationship between care ethics and stakeholder theory has been
addressed in the literature but only from a theoretical perspective and not from an empirical perspective.
Keywords Ethics, Corporate social responsibility, Stakeholder analysis
Paper type Research paper

Foreword
Our paper shows that stakeholder inclusion and corporate social responsibility (CSR)
perceptions are related to care ethics among business students. As a consequence, care ethics
can be considered as an interesting avenue for educating business students to sustainability.
Indeed, business education has come under significant criticism despite tremendous growth
in enrollments in graduate business administration since the 1950s. Distrust and cynicism
regarding corporate leaders appears to be directed at business schools as well. In their
accusations of corporations – and especially of those in the financial world – many people
question the extent to which business schools have been “complicit” in the criminal behavior
of their alumni. Implementing care ethics in business education (Y. Pesqueux proposes to
name this process “educare”) could foster efficiency and legitimacy of business ethics
education. The educare strategy is meant to balance the predominance of the self-interest
Society and Business Review
Vol. 11 No. 2, 2016
This article is a republication made available for the anniversary issue of SBR. The original article pp. 217-230
was published in Society and Business Review, Vol. 8 No. 1 (2013) pp. 32-44 and can be found online © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5680
at: www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/17465681311297667 DOI 10.1108/SBR-04-2016-0029
SBR model in business education by affirming the existence of the caring dimension among
11,2 students and managers. The care theory, therefore, proposes a powerful framework which
could change the business school agenda to favor a pluralistic vision of people based on
self-interest and altruism rather than based on a focus on self-interest alone. Educare
provides an interesting alternative perspective for the detractors of ethics who argue that
business is not about care, values or morality but about money. It is no longer necessary to
218 try “to “sell” students on the importance of ethics in business and its relevance to their
success. Rather, business schools can build on the fact that students do care: “the language of
care begins with the premise that we do care, not that we have a responsibility to care”
(Freeman and Liedtka, 1991, p. 97). People do not stop caring when in the “real world” of
business; we should all should abandon the “false duality that asks individuals to be
managers from 9 to 5 and humans for the duration of their day” (Freeman and Liedtka, 1991,
p. 97). The legitimacy of ethics in business curricula is not based on what people should do
but on what people are. People remain human beings when they engage in business,
whatever they say. By promoting a pluralistic vision of business agents, educare will teach
students that one dimension is not inconsistent with the other. Caring and self-interest
should not be incompatible with each other, and educare will help students to “un-learn” the
taboo of being empathic in business relationships. Educare aims at changing business
education so that students can be free to express and to listen to their inner motives, which
are not exclusively rationally self-centered. Ethics can, therefore, be implemented on a daily
basis in work relationships.

Introduction
It has been established that business ethics and CSR can be regrouped under the “business
and society” umbrella, but there is some ambiguity as to how the two are related (Schwartz
and Carroll, 2008). De George states that business ethics “embraces” CSR (De George, 1987,
p. 204), whereas Carroll considers on the contrary that the “ethical” dimension is “embodied”
in the “social responsibility” of the firm (Carroll, 1979, p. 499). Joyner and Payne argue that
these two concepts are “interchangeable” (Joyner and Payne, 2002, p. 300).
This ambiguity in the literature also prevails in teaching. As stated by a recent survey,
the majority of the Financial Times top 50 global business schools require their MBA
students to study one or more of the three following topics: “ethics, CSR and sustainability”
(Christensen et al., 2007). However, there is no consensus on whether these topics should be
taught together. Ethics and CSR can be either taught together or in separate courses. Nothing
in this survey is said about how the two are related. In this paper, I propose an empirical
exploration of the relationship between teaching CSR and teaching ethics.
I aim to show that when teaching CSR, one cannot set aside the question of moral
education, especially if we focus on care ethics. I assert that caring education – which I
propose to call “educare” (Pesqueux, 2011a) – is necessary in a business curriculum if we
intend to positively influence students’ perception of CSR. It is only through the development
of a personal care ethics that students will be inclined to perceive CSR as valuable in their
future career.
Indeed, CSR literature often gives great weight to collective aspects, whereas individual
perceptions are fundamental in nurturing a sustainable approach:
[…] a company’s social responsibilities are not met by some abstract organizational actor; they
are met by individual human actors who constantly make decisions and choices, some big and
some small, some minor and others of great consequence (Wood, 1991, p. 699).
This is why, in this paper, I focus on CSR perception, which is consistent with other research CSR
involving surveys which aim to understand how CSR is individually understood and perception in
perceived (Balasubramanian et al., 2005). I propose herein to explore how business students’
perception of CSR is primarily determined by their individual care ethics.
business
Rozuel and Kakabadse already addressed ethics as a “prerequisite” to CSR (Rozuel education
and Kakabadse, 2011). They show how people, more than roles, have to be taken into
account to understand how CSR is implemented. However, their analysis relies on a 219
“virtue/character” model of morality. From my standpoint, as I will show here, care
ethics seems more relevant as a moral grounding for CSR than virtue ethics because of
the basic similarity between care ethics and stakeholder theories: “just as stakeholders
theories of corporate obligations are articulated in terms of a web of relationships, so too
an ethics of care focuses primarily upon relationships” (Palmer and Stoll, 2011, p. 115).
To my knowledge, no empirical research has yet been conducted on the correlation
between the ethics of care and CSR. This paper aims to fill this gap and show that care
ethics is a determinant of CSR perception among business students. I will first list five
types of perceptions of CSR, and then I will give a two-sided definition of care ethics.
Once this foundation is established, I will show how both constructs are related via
stakeholder inclusion in the context of business education.

Corporate social responsibility perceptions

When we look at the prolific literature on CSR, we observe that there are numerous
different ways to understand the concept. Many literature reviews exist to map the
territory (Taneja et al., 2011). I will not focus on the CSR theories taught to students but
rather on the opinions they have regarding them (Balasubramanian et al., 2005). This
paper proposes to classify CSR perceptions into at least five categories: critical,
normative, instrumental, supererogative and sustainable. They correspond to
perspectives that can be found both in the research and in gray literature.
First, the critical conception argues that CSR is irrelevant and inconsistent. It can
take many different forms. CSR can be considered, for instance, to be a “passing fad”
(Nelson, 2002; White, 2005), a “sideshow”, a “utopia” (Gokulsing, 2011) or “not useful”
(Freeman and Liedtka, 1991). Even Bowen, the father of the concept of “social
responsibility”, criticizes the relevance of the notion of CSR because of its “minimal
effectiveness” (Acquier et al., 2011). Probably, the most famous critical perspective on
CSR is that of Friedman (1970), who argued that the social responsibility of a firm is to
make profits, meaning that CSR is nothing more than what the firm already is. This
vision of CSR is certainly widespread among businessmen, but other alternative visions
are beginning to emerge, especially among students. Net Impact Studies conducted over
several years by the Aspen Institute show that there is a growing concern among
business students about the social value they may produce (McGaw, 2011). In 2008, 33
per cent said that one of the primary responsibilities of a company is to “create value for
the local community in which it operates” (as opposed to only 25 per cent in 2002).
If one assumes that CSR is indeed relevant, two primary conceptions typically
emerge. One can be called “ethical” or “normative” and the other “instrumental”
(Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994; Garriga and Melé, 2004; Van Parijs, 1991). In the ethical/
normative vision, CSR is relevant because business has a duty toward society. This
obligation can be strictly moral, but it can also be – and tends to be – enforced by law or
regulations. In both cases, it is about doing what should be done, even if it means not
SBR doing well and losing profitability. On the contrary, the instrumental perspective is
11,2 morally neutral but considers CSR to be a way to sustain profits. It is less a constraint
and more an opportunity. Indeed, numerous studies strive to demonstrate the empirical
relationship between corporate financial performance and corporate social performance
(Margolis and Walsh, 2003). The instrumental power of CSR has been analyzed from
many different perspectives. It can be considered a driver for innovation (Nidumolu
220 et al., 2009). Through employee volunteerism, it may also enhance human resources
management (Gatignon-Turnau and Louart, 2010). Very often, its instrumental value is
perceived as a way to improve one’s corporate reputation (Siltaoja, 2006), with the risk of
these efforts being reduced to a kind of “greenwashing”.
A fourth way of perceiving CSR is to consider it to be an option and not an (moral,
legal or instrumental) obligation. In this case, CSR is voluntary and at the discretion of
the firm (Wettstein, 2009). I propose to call this approach “supererogative”: it is good if
companies opt for it, but it is not bad if they do not choose to do so. Corporations can
freely choose to engage in CSR, but it is neither seen as their duty nor in their interests.
It is consistent with a contractual vision of the firm:
[…] as long as the contracting parties are clear about the firm’s intentions, even if those
intentions include something other than wealth creation, Easterbrook and Fischel (1991, p. 36)
argued, “no one should be allowed to object” (Margolis and Walsh, 2003, p. 272).
Finally, a fifth perspective is to bring CSR closer to sustainability issues (Montiel, 2008).
In this sense, the question is not about the responsibility of business. The question is:
what is business about? What is its goal? How can we transform business as usual into
sustainable business and move toward sustainability (WBCSD, 2005)? It is neither a
question of opportunities nor obligations. Yet, it is not supererogative because in the
long term, companies will have no choice but to transform into sustainable enterprises
(Parrish, 2007). CSR is considered here as the future of capitalism; the element which will
shape it in the coming decades.

The ethic of care

The “ethic of care” construct arose in the context of the controversy between Carol
Gilligan and Lawrence Kohlberg in the field of moral development psychology
(Donleavy, 2008; Reiter, 1996; Thompson, 1995). Gilligan (1982) assumes that although
men conceptualize morality as a problem of rights, women tend to conceptualize it as
involving empathy and compassion for others. This feminine moral orientation should
not be considered inferior, simply different: what she calls “a different voice”. If this link
between women and care ethics is relevant from a historical perspective, it is
questionable from a theoretical and empirical perspective. I agree with scholars such as
Sherwin (quoted in: Borgerson, 2007, p. 485) who “do not believe it is appropriate to
characterize the ethics of care as specifically feminist”. I propose herein a two-sided
definition of care ethics based on human nature (valid for men and women), as being
both a “disposition” and “practice” (Tronto, 1993).
First, most care theorists agree that ethics is not only about reasoning. Emotions are
essential for acting as a moral agent, and “cold-bloodedness” can lead to undesirable
moral actions (Damasio, 2000). For some care theorists, morality relies heavily on the
disposition for empathy (Skoe, 2010; Slote, 2007), which can be defined as “a
psychological disposition to put oneself in someone else’s shoes”[1] (Berthoz and
Jorland, 2004, p. 19). Noddings prefers to speak of “engrossment” rather than empathy CSR
(Noddings, 2002), as the former involves a more active and less receptive attitude than perception in
the latter. Some other authors focus on “attention”, on the fact that it matters to be
attentive (Molinier et al., 2009). The words use to describe it may vary, but morality is
business
most often seen to go beyond reasoning, as it is contextual and involves sensitivity and education
receptiveness. From a business point of view, this means that “with care theory, the
emotional becomes part of the occupational”[2] (Pesqueux, 2011a, p. 5). 221
However, Tronto criticizes authors who do not include a practical aspect in the ethics of
care (1993). If care ethics is only dispositional, it is in danger of disappearing or staying
purely theoretical. Actually, many care practices are part of our day-to-day lives and can
easily be brought to mind: helping the elderly cross the street, spending time working in
community services, helping a younger brother/sister do his/her homework, etc. The
specificity of those practices is that they aim at sustaining relationships and responding to
the needs of others. With its reliance on “relational anthropology” (Renouard, 2011) and its
acknowledgement of the need for social connection embedded in human nature (Cacioppo
and Patrick, 2008), the originality of the care theory is that “maintaining relationships is
becoming a moral issue as important as the search for justice” (Garrau and Le Goff, 2010, p.
43). I, thus, propose to define care ethics as an empathic disposition which is translated into
practices for the sake of other human beings.

Care ethics, stakeholder inclusion and corporate social responsibility

perception
Care ethics has been linked in the literature only indirectly to CSR, most of the time
through the stakeholder theory. First, it has been described as a way to replace CSR and
to conceptualize “corporations as a network of relationships makes possible a social
world in which ‘caring’ has primary significance” (Freeman and Liedtka, 1991, p. 92).
Second, it has been seen as a way to improve the stakeholder theory. It can help to do
away with the “masculine metaphors” which underlie the stakeholder concept, such as
autonomy, control, competition, conflict, objectivity, power and authority (Wicks et al.,
1994). It can provide the moral foundations the stakeholder theory lacks. Although the
justice and utilitarian theory seem irrelevant, the care framework could provide a useful
perspective (Burton and Dunn, 1996). Because the stakeholder theory has been criticized
as “ambiguous” (Pesqueux, 2006, p. 17) and has “so far had little to say about how
managers and other decision makers in business are made aware of morally significant
relationships” (Palmer and Stoll, 2011, p. 115), some contributions relying on the care
theory try to give more details on what principles can help managers to make practical
decisions regarding which stakeholders should be cared for in priority. Burton and
Dunn made an initial attempt at this, but their approach was criticized as being still too
vague (Wicks, 1996). Engster drew upon it and tried to make it more precise, giving an
order in the priority to care (Engster, 2011): stockholders and employees are first on the
list; local communities are second and, finally, customers are third. Suppliers and
competitors are not considered as being in the scope of caring for managers.
This potential link between care ethics and the stakeholder theory is very important
for CSR issues, as the stakeholder theory “has emerged as the dominant paradigm in
CSR” (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001, p. 118). Even though the notion of CSR emerged
(Bowen, 1953) much earlier than the notion of the stakeholder (Freeman, 1984), “Bowen’s
description of the corporation is extremely close to that adopted subsequently by
SBR stakeholder approaches” (Acquier et al., 2011). Obviously, other theories of CSR exist,
11,2 and the stakeholder approach is far from being consensual inside this field of research.
This absence of consensus is increased by the fact that Freeman proposed more than one
version of the stakeholder theory, shifting from an instrumental to a normative
perspective. Nevertheless, as I focus herein on individual attitudes toward CSR and not
on theories, I assume that CSR perception is correlated with stakeholder inclusion. If we
222 can also assume that care ethics is a foundation for the stakeholder approach, care ethics
could be considered as a determinant for CSR perception.

Hypotheses
I propose to test three different hypotheses in this paper. The first one is about the
relationship between the ethics of care and stakeholder inclusion. I assume that the more
caring business students are, the more they will be inclined to incorporate a variety of
stakeholders in a CSR approach. I specify H1 as follows:
H1. Stakeholder inclusion is positively correlated with care ethics among business
students.
Second, I will verify that our experimental design shows a relationship between CSR
perceptions and stakeholder inclusion:
H2. CSR perception is correlated to stakeholder inclusion among business students.
Third, I will verify the transitivity between H1 and H2. Hence, I assume that business
students’ individual ethics of care has a positive influence on their perception of CSR. I
specify H3 as follows:
H3. CSR perception is correlated to care ethics among business students.
To be more specific, I assume that this correlation will be negative concerning the
critical perception of CSR:
H3a. Critical CSR perception is negatively correlated to care ethics among business
students.

Method
Participants
The population for this study consisted of students from a leading French business school. In
total, 535 first-year masters of science in management students were sampled, and 450
questionnaires were properly completed, 84 per cent of the sample. They were 51.6 per cent
men. The students ranged in age from 18 to 39 (M ⫽ 21.2 SD ⫽ 2.39). The majority (66.4 per
cent) are students that entered the masters just after specific French preparation for top
business schools. The others entered the school after graduating from another program.
Also, 15 per cent report to be scholarship recipients, which, in France, is one of the most used
criteria to assess the social origin of students, and 30.8 per cent report having previously had
coursework on CSR.

Measures
Stakeholder inclusion. A six-item dependent variable (Z) was designed using a scale
ranging from 0, “I do not agree at all”, to 4, “I fully agree”. Each item of Z refers to a
different category of stakeholder that is considered to be incorporated in a CSR
approach. I have chosen the stakeholders that are given by Engster (2011) when he CSR
discusses the link between care ethics and the stakeholder theory: shareholders, perception in
employees, clients, suppliers, competitors and communities. Also, Z is the average of the business
scales of the various stakeholders (M ⫽ 2.8, SD ⫽ 0.73).
Corporate social responsibility. I designed items to illustrate the five different
education
conceptions of CSR previously discussed. For each item, I asked the students to rate on
a scale that ranges from 0, “I do not agree at all”, to 4, “I fully agree”. In Table I, the items 223
for each type of perception can be found. Interestingly, the critical vision of CSR is the
least adopted by students. We can also note that CSR is perceived to be more a moral
obligation than a legal requirement. In addition, the instrumental value of CSR relies
mostly on reputation management.
Care ethics. To our knowledge, the ECI metrics built by the Norwegian psychologist
Skoe (1993) is the only existing assessment tool for the ethics of care. It is based on an
interview consisting of four moral dilemmas, including a dilemma in a real context.
Raters score the interview to assess the level of ECI (from 3 to 12). This scale does indeed
seem to be statistically robust and has been used in many different areas in the field of
moral development psychology. Unfortunately, it considers care to be mainly a
reasoning ability, whereas I stated earlier that care has to be defined not only as
cognitive but also as an affective disposition.
DeMoss and McCann carried out a study based on an adaptation of the sentence
completion test (SCT) (DeMoss and McCann, 1997). This methodology has been tested
only once in the literature. Moreover, it was used to show if students were either
“justice-oriented” or “care-oriented”, which is not our intention here. Just like Skoe’s ECI,
the SCT is based only on individual dispositions, whereas, as I stated previously, care
also includes “practices” (Tronto, 1993).

Mean SD

Critical 1.63 0.98

CSR is an utopia 2.02 1.15
CSR is a passing fad 1.23 1.15
Normative 2.60 0.80
CSR meets a legal requirement 1.83 1.17
CSR addresses a moral obligation 3.36 0.90
Instrumental 2.19 0.68
CSR maximizes profit for shareholders 0.92 1.02
CSR responds to a need for innovation 2.46 1.13
CSR increases employee engagement 2.20 1.13
CSR is an issue of image and reputation 3.20 0.94
Supererogative 2.99 1.03
CSR is a voluntary process
Table I.
Sustainable 2.68 1.12 Items for the five
CSR is an idea for the future of capitalism types of CSR
and trade perceptions
SBR This was my reasoning behind my decision to create a new scale. I paid particular
11,2 attention to conceptualization in this process of scale development, as recommended by
MacKenzie et al. (2011). I used focus groups, a literature review and pre-tests to aid in
designing a final list of 14 Likert scale items, including “dispositions” and “practices”
items (Appendix). This scale, which I propose to call the care ethics scale (CES), ranges
from 0, “I do not agree at all”, to 4, “I fully agree”. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.86. CES is the
224 average of all the scores for the items (M ⫽ 2.71, SD ⫽ 0.6). Controlling variables were
also used: gender, age, social origin (scholarship recipient or not) and self-reported
previous CSR coursework (binary scale, “Yes” or “No”).

Results
As shown in Table II, the Pearson’s correlation between CES and Z is significant and
equal to 0.34 (p ⬍ 0.0001). The correlation between CES and each category of
stakeholder constituting Z is also significant.
We can make several remarks based on these results. First, they clearly support H1
that stakeholder inclusion is related to care ethics among students. Second, the
assumption made by Engster (2011), about the order for stakeholder inclusion according
to care ethics, seems undermined by this survey. If employees are indeed at the top of the
list, suppliers and competitors are not excluded and shareholders are not prioritized.
Communities appear to be central and not secondary. I note that for business students,
care ethics is not obviously equated to the actual capitalistic model that puts the
shareholder at the center of the interests of the company’s strategy. This is in line with
some authors that see in care ethics a theory that leads to the wholesale rejection of
capitalism (Engster, 2011). We can note also that women do not include more
stakeholders than men. This is interesting, since I indicated earlier that the care theory
has often been considered to be a feminist theory. Finally, we can also observe that
taking a course on CSR does not create more desire for stakeholder inclusion. Here again,
this would point favorably to the care assumption that morality is not based mainly on
reasoning and classroom teaching.
The second assumption, that CSR perception relies on stakeholder inclusion, is
supported by the results reported in Table III. The relationship between CSR and
stakeholder inclusion is present among students whatever their perception (negative
correlation for critical perception and positive correlation for other types of perception).

Previous Scholarship
CES coursework Age Gender recipient

Stakeholder inclusion (Z) 0.34*** 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.00

Employees 0.33*** 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05
Customers 0.24*** 0.02 ⫺0.01 0.08 0.04
Suppliers 0.28*** 0.11 0.03 0.09 ⫺0.01
Competitors 0.19*** 0.02 0.00 0.10* ⫺0.02
Shareholders 0.15*** 0.01 0.01 0.04 ⫺0.02
Table II. Communities 0.32*** 0.05 0.01 ⫺0.01 0.00
Pearson’s
correlations between Notes: Gender was scored 0 for men and 1 for women; previous coursework was scored
CES and stakeholder 0 for “No” and 1 for “Yes”; scholarship recipient was scored 0 for “No” and 1 for “Yes”; * p ⬍ 0.05;
inclusion **p ⬍ 0.01; *** p ⬍ 0.001
 Stakeholder
inclusion (Z) Employees Customers Suppliers Competitors Shareholders Communities

Critical ⫺0.15** ⫺0.15*** ⫺0.13** ⫺0.16*** ⫺0.09 0.07 0.18***

Normative 0.34*** 0.24*** 0.23*** 0.25*** 0.18*** 0.16*** 0.28***
Instrumental 0.33*** 0.25*** 0.18*** 0.24*** 0.22*** 0.29*** 0.24***
Supererogative 0.22*** 0.28*** 0.22*** 0.14** 0.04 0.09 0.20***
Sustainable 0.22*** 0.23*** 0.17*** 0.18*** 0.08 0.02 0.27***

Notes: * p ⬍ 0.05; ** p ⬍ 0.01; *** p ⬍ 0.001

Table III.
225
CSR

CSR vision and

Pearson’s
education
business
perception in

stakeholder inclusion
correlations between
SBR Concerning the third and final assumption about the positive relationship between care
11,2 ethics and CSR perception, the results are reported in Table IV.
These results support our assumption that care ethics is a determinant for all kinds
of CSR perception. The specific assumption that CES is negatively correlated to critical
perception of CSR is also supported.

226 Discussion and suggestions for further research

These figures show the existence of an empirical relationship between ethics of care,
stakeholder inclusion and perceptions of CSR. However, when we look at the
correlations between the different kinds of CSR perception, we see that apart from the
critical perception, they are all correlated positively (Table V).
Scholars do not agree on the meaning that should be given to CSR, but they do agree
on the fact that the existing meanings are not consistent. Normative validity and
instrumental power are not usually considered to be compatible. The normative CSR
approach is clearly not consistent with the supererogative approach. We can see here a
confirmation that CSR is actually a concept which is vague and ambiguous (Pesqueux,
2011b), at least in the minds of the students at this leading French business school. The
implications of this are not only for CSR but also for the stakeholder theory. As
stakeholder inclusion is correlated to the different kinds of CSR perception, the concept
of stakeholder can be criticized as being usable for defending any position (Pesqueux,
2011). It is a form of utopia which could possibly be dangerous. Because of its vagueness
and ambiguity, it can legitimize any kind of corporate decision. Thus, we can assume
that the students surveyed express actual sensitivity for the social dimension of
business, more than a clear vision of what CSR is and who the stakeholders should be.
I would like to discuss the implications of these results for business education. Two
avenues could be pursued concerning the teaching of business and society and the links

Previous Scholarship
CES coursework Age Gender recipient

Critical ⫺0.19*** 0.03 ⫺0.07 ⫺0.07 0.02

Normative 0.30*** 0.11* ⫺0.05 0.10* 0.04
Table IV. Instrumental 0.23*** 0.07 ⫺0.02 0.03 ⫺0.04
Pearson’s Supererogative 0.21*** 0.00 0.00 0.02 -0.11*
correlations with Sustainable 0.26*** ⫺0.02 0.03 0.16*** ⫺0.02
dependent variables
on CSR vision Notes: * p ⬍ 0.05; **p ⬍ 0.01; *** p ⬍ 0.001

Critical Normative Instrumental Supererogative Sustainable

Critical ⫺0.12* 0.05 ⫺0.09 ⫺0.20***

Normative 0.23*** 0.12* 0.26***
Instrumental 0.24*** 0.21***
Table V. Supererogative 0.20***
Pearson’s Sustainable
correlations between
CSR perceptions Notes: * p ⬍ 0.05; **p ⬍ 0.01; *** p ⬍ 0.001
between ethics of care and CSR. In the case of normative, instrumental or sustainable CSR
settings, business education should require students to learn how to implement CSR perception in
when they later become managers. Educare is, therefore, needed in the curriculum, as I
have shown that a positive perception of CSR is primarily determined by personal care
business
ethics. If one chooses the critical perspective, nothing has to be done in terms of educare, education
as CSR is not targeted as a managerial practice. In a supererogative setting, CSR should
be encouraged as a possible good practice but not as something which is part of the core 227
business curriculum. In this case, the development of care ethics should certainly be
considered as an optional track. Concerning the inclusion of stakeholders, one way to
address this issue indirectly would be through the ethics of care. I could shift from a
focus either on the link between CSR and stakeholders or between stakeholders and
ethics of care to a stress on the link between CSR and ethics of care. This could help
re-center the focus on individual empowerment for sustaining relationships and put an
end to the collective disempowerment created by the stakeholder notion.
Future research could take a variety of directions. First, researchers could try to
consolidate these results by extending the survey to other business schools and also to
employees or managers on the job. Second, the care ethics scale could be strengthened,
as its validity could be challenged for at least two reasons. First, is care ethics really
assessable, as the very nature of the ethics of care is that it is “hidden” (Molinier et al.,
2009)? Second, is it possible to say that someone is more caring than someone else, as
care is always embedded in the context of a specific relationship (Noddings, 2002)? Last,
following some recent research, researchers could investigate what kind of CSR vision
generates the most sustainable mutual benefit for society and the firm (Gyves and
O’Higgins, 2008). It could help business schools to clarify the place of ethics and CSR in
their curriculum to be consistent in building a “business and society” curriculum and
sidestep the current ambiguity of the notion of CSR.

Notes
1. This citation was translated from French by the author.
2. This citation was translated from French by the author.

References
Acquier, A., Gond, J.-P. and Pasquero, J. (2011), “Rediscovering Howard R. Bowen’s Legacy: the
unachieved agenda and continuing relevance of social responsibilities of the businessman”,
Business & Society, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 607-646.
Balasubramanian, N.K., Kimber, D. and Siemensma, F. (2005), “Emerging opportunities or
traditions reinforced?”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, No. 17, pp. 79-92.
Berthoz, A. and Jorland, G. (2004), L’empathie, Odile Jacob, Paris.
Borgerson, J.L. (2007), “On the harmony of feminist ethics and business ethics”, Business & Society
Review, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 477-509.
Bowen, H.R. (1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper.
Burton, B.K. and Dunn, C.P. (1996), “Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory”,
Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 133-147.
Cacioppo, J.T. and Patrick, W. (2008), Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social
Connection, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY.
SBR Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
11,2
Christensen, L.J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L.P., Hoffman, W.M. and Carrier, J. (2007), “Ethics, CSR, and
sustainability education in the Financial Times top 50 global business schools: baseline
data and future research directions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 347-368.
Damasio, A. (2000), L’erreur de Descartes, Odile Jacob, Paris.
228 De George, R.T. (1987), “The status of business ethics: past and future”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 201-211.
DeMoss, M.A. and McCann, G.K. (1997), “Without a care in the world: the business ethics course
and its exclusion of a care perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 435-443.
Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T.W. (1994), “Toward a unified conception of business ethics:
integrative social contracts theory”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 252-284.
Donleavy, G.D. (2008), “No man’s land: exploring the space between Gilligan and Kohlberg”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 807-822.
Engster, D. (2011), “Care ethics and stakeholder theory”, in Hamington, M. and Sander-Staudt, M.
(Eds), Applying Care Ethics to Business, Springer, pp. 93-110.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Marshfield, MA.
Freeman, R.E. and Liedtka, J. (1991), “Corporate social responsibility: a critical approach”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 92-98.
Friedman, M. (1970), “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”, The New
York Times Magazine, 13 September.
Garrau, M. and Le Goff, A. (2010), Care, Justice, Dépendance - Introduction aux théories du care,
PUF, Paris.
Garriga, E. and Melé, D. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 Nos 1/2, pp. 51-71.
Gatignon-Turnau, A.L. and Louart, P. (2010), Le bénévolat de compétences: un nouveau dispositif
au service de la gestion des ressources humaines?, XXIème congrès AGRH, Saint-Malo.
Gilligan, C. (1982), In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development,
Harvard University Press, New York, NY.
Gokulsing, D. (2011), “CSR matters in the development of Mauritius”, Social Responsibility Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 218-233.
Gyves, S. and O’Higgins, E. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility: an avenue for sustainable
benefit for society and the firm?”, Society and Business Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 207-223.
Joyner, B.E. and Payne, D. (2002), “Evolution and implementation: a study of values, business
ethics and corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 297-311.
McGaw, N. (2011), “Assessing MBA attitudes about business and society”, in Swanson, D. and
Fisher, D. (Eds), Toward Assessing Business Ethics Education, IAP, p. 412.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), “Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm
perspective”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-127.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2011), “Construct measurement and
validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing
techniques”, Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 293-334.
Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P. (2003), “Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by CSR
business”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 268-305.
perception in
Molinier, P., Laugier, S. and Paperman, P. (2009), Qu’est-ce que le care? Souci des autres, sensibilité,
responsabilité, Payot, Paris.
business
Montiel, I. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability separate pasts,
education
common futures”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 245-269.
Nelson, J. (2002), “Corporate social responsibility: passing fad or fundamental to a more 229
sustainable future”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 7 No. 2002, pp. 37-39.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K. and Rangaswami, M.R. (2009), “Why sustainability is now the key
driver of innovation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 9, pp. 57-64.
Noddings, N. (2002), Educating Moral People: A Caring Alternative to Character Education,
Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Palmer, D.E. and Stoll, M.L. (2011), “Moving toward a more caring stakeholder theory: global
business ethics in dialogue with the feminist ethics of care”, in Hamington, M. and
Sander-Staudt, M. (Eds), Applying Care Ethics to Business, Springer, pp. 111-126.
Parrish, B.D. (2007), “Designing the sustainable enterprise”, Futures, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 846-860.
Pesqueux, Y. (2006), “Pour une évaluation critique de la théorie des parties prenantes”, Décider
avec les parties prenantes, La Découverte, Paris, pp. 19-40.
Pesqueux, Y. (2011a), “La philosophie du care et la diversité”, Encyclopédie de la diversité, EMS,
pp. 422-434.
Pesqueux, Y. (2011b), “La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise (RSE) comme discours ambigu”,
Innovations, No. 34, pp. 37-55.
Reiter, S.A. (1996), “The Kohlberg-Gilligan controversy: lessons for accounting ethics education”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-54.
Renouard, C. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility, utilitarianism, and the capabilities
approach”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 85-97.
Rozuel, C. and Kakabadse, N.K. (2011), “Managerial ethics as a prerequisite to CSR: the person
behind the role”, in Idowu, S.O. and Louche, C. (Eds), Theory and Practice of Corporate
Social Responsibility, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 3-22.
Schwartz, M.S. and Carroll, A.B. (2008), “Integrating and unifying competing and complementary
frameworks”, Business & Society, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 148-186.
Siltaoja, M. (2006), “Value priorities as combining core factors between CSR and reputation – a
qualitative study”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 91-111.
Skoe, E.E. (1993), The Ethic of Care Interview Manual, University of Oslo, Oslo.
Skoe, E.E. (2010), “The relationship between empathy-related constructs and care-based moral
development in young adulthood”, Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 191-211.
Slote, M.A. (2007), The Ethics of Care and Empathy, Taylor & Francis.
Taneja, S., Taneja, P. and Gupta, R. (2011), “Researches in corporate social responsibility: a review
of shifting focus, paradigms, and methodologies”, Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 101 No. 3,
pp. 343-364.
Thompson, C.J. (1995), “A contextualist proposal for the conceptualization and study of marketing
ethics”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 177-191.
Tronto, J.C. (1993), Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for An Ethic of Care, Psychology
Press, Hove.
Van Parijs, P. (1991), Le trilemme de l’éthique des Affaires, La revue nouvelle.
SBR WBCSD. (2005), Pathways to 2050: Energy & Climate Change, World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, Conches-Geneva.
11,2
Wettstein, F. (2009), “Beyond voluntariness, beyond csr: making a case for human rights and
justice”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 125-152.
White, A. (2005), “Fade, integrate or transform? The future of CSR”, Business for Social
Responsibility, available at: www.bsr.org
230 Wicks, A.C. (1996), “Reflections on the practical relevance of feminist thought to business”,
Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 523-531.
Wicks, A.C., Gilbert, D.R. and Freeman, R.E. (1994), “A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder
concept”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 475-497.
Wood, D.J. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisited”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 691-718.

Appendix
Items for the care ethics scale:
• I am particularly sensitive to other people’s suffering.
• Sometimes, I think about people who are less fortunate than I am.
• I feel affected by people who are vulnerable or dependant on others.
• Generally speaking, other people’s problems don’t bother me much.
• When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them.
• I would describe myself as a rather empathetic person.
• I understand people who feel they are not fully appreciated.
• When I pass homeless people in the street, I sometimes wonder how our society can find that
acceptable.
• I feel profoundly outraged by the suffering or poverty that some people are forced to live
with.
• When I see a pregnant woman or an elderly person in public transit, I willingly get up to let
them have my seat.
• When I see someone who has trouble crossing the street, I offer to help them.
• I sometimes help my friends who are having trouble.
• I regularly check in on people who I know are going through a difficult time.
• I do volunteer work for people in need.

Corresponding author
Kévin André can be contacted at: andrek@essec.fr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com