Theory Pluralistic CSR2

7/30/2019 Theory Pluralistic CSR2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theory-pluralistic-csr2 1/48

No. 47-2007 ICCSR Research Paper Series – ISSN 1479-5124

RETHI NKI NG THE BUSI NESS-SOCI ETY I NTERFACE:

BEYOND THE FUNCTI ONALI ST TRAP

Jean-Pascal Gond & Dirk Matten

Research Paper SeriesInternational Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility

ISSN 1479-5124

Editor: Jean-Pascal Gond

International Centre for Corporate Social ResponsibilityNottingham University Business School

Nottingham UniversityJubilee CampusWollaton Road

Nottingham NG8 1BBUnited Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 115 951 4781Fax: +44 (0) 115 84 68074

Email: [email protected]://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR




RETHI NKI NG THE BUSI NESS-SOCI ETY I NTERFACE:

BEYOND THE FUNCTI ONALI ST TRAP

Jean-Pascal GOND

Dir k MA TTEN

Abst rac t

This paper moves Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) research beyond a business-

centred and instrumental model by conceptualizing the inherently pluralistic nature

of societally embedded CSR. It argues that the major social sciences have

competing views of the corporation-society interface that inevitably result in multiple

conceptualizations of CSR. 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.

K e y - w o r d s

Corporate Social Responsibility – Business-Society Interface – Social Theory –

Theory-building

Addr esses fo r Cor r espondence

Jean-Pascal GondInternational Centre for Corporate Social ResponsibilityUniversity of Nottingham Business SchoolJubilee Campus, Wollaton RoadNottingham NG8 1BB, UKTel: +44 (0) 115 951 4781Fax: +44 (0) 115 84 68074Email: [email protected]

Dirk MattenHewlett-Packard Chair in Corporate Social ResponsibilitySchulich School of BusinessYork University4700 Keele StreetToronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, CanadaUnited KingdomTel: 416.736.2100 ext 20991Fax: 416.736.5195Email: [email protected]







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

Ullmann’s (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 today’s 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.

CSR TRAPPED B Y FUNCTI ONALI SM

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 bus iness-cen t r i c app roach to t he f i e ld

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 inter-

organizational, 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 Zald’s (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 Bowen’s 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 Bowen’s 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 Preston’s (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 Walsh’s

(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 laissez-

faire 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 func t iona l i s t o r ien t a t ion

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 1970’s, 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.

CSR’s 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.

REVERSI NG TH E PERSPECTI VE ON CSR

Sta r t i ng f rom Soc iety

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 & Melé, 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.

Cons ide r ing a l te rna t i v e pa rad igms

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 corporation-

society 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 Morgan’s (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 CSR’s

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 Morgan’s 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). In this paper, the typology

accounts for differences within the CSR literature 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.

FI GURE 1 . Bu r re l l and Morgan ( 1979 ) 's Fram ew ork as a Heur i s t i c Too l

Radica l chang e

Regu la t i on

Objec t i v i t y

RadicalS t ruc tu ra l i sm

RadicalHuman i sm

Sub jec t i v i t y

I n te rp re ta t i v i sm

Orientation toward

Regulation

Funct iona l i sm

CSR l i te ra t ure

Orientation toward Change

Orientation toward

Objectivity

Orientation toward

Subjectivity

Or ig ina l

f r a m e w o r k

( B u r r e l l a n d

Morgan , 1979)

Adapted

framework to investigate less

functionalist trends in the

CSR literat ure



A PLURALI STI C CORPORATE SOCI AL RESPONSI BI LI TY

FRAMEWORK

The framework resulting from Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) heuristic provides a

pluralistic perspective on CSR that characterizes four research orientations, each

embedded within a specific concept of the corporation-society interface.

FI GURE 2. Overv iew o f t he Plura l is t ic CSR Fram ew ork

FOCUS ON CHANGE

FOCUS ON REGULATION

ORIENTATIONTOWARD

OBJECTIVITY

CSR as a po w erre la t i onsh ip

CSR as a so cio-cogn i t i ve

cons t ruc t i on

CSR as a

socia lf u n c t i o n

Socio-political viewof the Corporation

and Society

Functionalist viewof the Corporation

and Society

Constructivist viewof the Corporation

and Society

Culturalist view of the Corporation and

Society Interface

ORIENTATIONTOWARD

SUBJECTIVITYCSR as a cul t ur a l

p roduc t

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.



TABLE 1 . D im ensions o f t he CSR Plura l is t ic Fram ew

CSRPerspect ive

CSR as a Social Funct ion CSR as a Pow erRela t ionsh ip

CSR as a CuProduc

Functionalist view of the

Corporation and SocietyInterface

Socio-political view of the

Corporation and SocietyInterface

Culturalist vie

Corporation anInterfac

Corporation-

SocietyInterface (modeland key words) Interpenetrating Systems

Stability, Regulation, Goals Integration

Power RelationshipsStruggle, Domination,

Power, Goals Divergence

Systems InfusinValues, Organ

Culture, CoSensemak

Key questionsabout theInterface

How and why can Societyand Business pacifically

coexist? Why and how canbenefit from each other?

How and why canCorporations influence bySociety? How and why can

Society influence ordominate Corporations?

How can BusinesSociety’s value

Society influenceSocial behav

Definition androle of CSR CSR as a regulativefunction creating ultimatelythe integration of goals

between corporations andsociety

CSR as crystallized powerrelationships between

corporations and society /CSR as a way to increase orto legitimize actors’ power

CSR as a set orepresentatiodiscourses refle

organizational, innational and cult

Social ScienceOrientation

Objectivitye.g., Explaining CSR

(positive) impact and CSRdeterminants

Objectivitye.g., Explaining the ‘real’ political objectives behind

CSR

Subjective.g., Understan

national embeddCSR

Politicalorientation

Stabilitye.g., CSR is taken-for-

granted and maintains theC-S status quo

Changee.g., CSR reflects changing

social forces at the C-Sinterface

Stabilite.g., CSR offers a

the local view ointerfac



TABLE 1 . D im ens ions o f t he CSR Plu ra l i s t i c Fram ew ork ( c

CSRPerspect ive

CSR as a Social Funct ion CSR as a Pow erRela t ionsh ip

CSR as a CuProduc

Empirical

Illustration

Business Case for CSR in

the managerial literature;Corporate programsfocused on instrumental

CSR

NGOs vision of CSR as tool

to reframe theirrelationships withcorporations; Anti-CSRview; Corporations as

political actors

Differences

definitions provarious natgovernment

international in

Development High – Dominantperspective

Low – Emergingperspective

Low – Emeperspect

Related theoryand concepts

CSR-1; CSR-2; CSP Corporate Citizenship;Critical CSR (e.g.,

greenwashing)

Implicit CResponsiveness

making

Illustrative

papers

Carroll (1979); Wood

(1991)Waddock and Graves

(1997)

Banerjee (2003); Moon,

Crane & Matten (2005);Jones (1996)

Aguilera et al.

Matten and MooSwanson (1



The Fun ct ion al is t V iew of t he I n t er face: CSR as a Soc ia l Fun ct ion

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

society’s 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 society’s 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 society’s

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 (www.bsr.org) or CSR Europe (www.csreurope.org), 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 Soc io -po l i t i ca l V iew o f t he I n t e r face: CSR as a Pow er Re la t ionsh ip

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

http://k/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/OLKB4/www.bsr.org

http://www.csreurope.org/

http://www.csreurope.org/

http://k/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/OLKB4/www.bsr.org



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 American’s journalists who attempted to

highlight and stigmatize Robber Barons’ misbehaviours and wrongdoing (Markham,

2002).

The Cu l tu ra l i s t V iew o f t he I n te r face: CSR as a Cu l tu ra l P roduc t

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

int egrat e society ’s values? How are societies’ values reflected in corporat e social

behaviours? The questions generate basic research questions, such as: To what

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). Typologies

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 Const ru c t ion is t V iew of th e I n t er face: CSR as a Soc io-Cogn i t i ve

Cons t ruc t ion

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: How does business frame and

construct Society (and vice versa)? Through what processes and practices are the

corporation-society interface negotiated and defined? Other research examines basic

questions such as: How do stakeholders negotiate the content of CSR? What

strategies, corporate or societal, control the content of CSR? How are corporations’

effects on society identified and restrained by various actors? 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). These works

suggested refining stakeholder theory by relying on neo-institutional works



investigating longitudinal organizational fields (Hoffman, 1999) and/or by building on

Berger and Luckman’s (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 corporation’s 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.

APPLYI NG THE PLURALI STI C CSR FRAMEW ORK

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 Morgan’s (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.

Plura l iz ing CSR research by dev elop in g each perspect iv e

Develop ing funct ional is t 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.

Develop ing soc io-po l i t ica l 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

around specific social issues? Can CSR be a symbolic resource for secondary

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.

Develop ing cu l tura l is t 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). Yet, many questions remain unanswered. For

example, even when previous research explicitly identified cross-country 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.

Develop in g const r uc t io n is t 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. Déjean, 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-as-

practice (Whittington, 2006) reintroduces those missing dimensions, while actor-

network 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 socio-

cognitive 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.

Plura l i z ing CSR research by b r idg in g t he per spect i ves

Gioia and Pitre (1990) and Lewis and Grimes (1999) suggest building theories by

bridging Burrell and Morgan’s (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. P lura l iz ing CSR research by br i dg in g per spect ives

Crossed

perspec t ives on

CSR

Appr oach to CSR Exam ple o f research ques t ion s based

on CSR perspec t ives b r idg ing

CSR as a socialfunction and CSRas a powerrelationship

CSR is consideredboth as regulating toolaiming at improvingcorporate performanceand as a way forcorporation andsociety to influenceeach other

To what extent is the manipulation of stakeholders through symbolic CSRmore beneficial for corporations thansubstantive CSR efforts?

Does the strategic use of CSR improvesociety’s perceptions of corporations?

CSR as a socialfunction and CSRas a culturalproduct

CSR is consideredboth as a product of representationsinfluenced by the

cultural context and as a tool to integratecorporations andsociety’s objectives

To what extent is the CSP-CFPrelationship contingent to national andcultural context?

What features of national business

systems do affect CSR strategies?

Are specific types of organizationalcultures more able to sustaineconomically beneficial forms of CSR?

CSR as a culturalproduct and CSRas socio-cognitiveconstruction

CSR is consideredboth as a culturallyembedded conceptand as sociallyconstructed throughdeliberate andemerging actors’

strategies

How CSR concepts and practices havebeen exported from the Americancultural towards European, African andAsian cultures?

How actors are mobilizing strategicallyartefacts and institutionalized mythsfrom their own cultural context to

develop CSR markets? To what extent is the construction of

CSR practices dependent from thecultural context?

SR as a socio-cognitiveconstruction andCSR as a powerrelationship

CSR is consideredboth as resulting fromactors’ actions and asa way for actors toincrease their power

How power games are playing in theconstruction of a legitimate definition of CSR between a corporation and itsstakeholders?

To what extent actors providing CSRmetrics and management toolsincreasing their power through that

activity?



Plura l i z ing CSR research by m ov ing beyond func t ion a l i sm

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.

FI GURE 3. Mov ing CSR beyon d fun ct ion al ism w i th t he p lu ra l is t ic CSR

f r a m e w o r k

Rad ica l s t r uc tu r a l i stperspect ive on CSR

Rad ica l hum an is t

perspect ive on CSR

I n t e r p r e t a t i v i s tperspect ive on CSR

CSR as a

p o w e r r e la t i onsh ip

CSR as a

soc io-

cogn i t i ve

CSR as asoc ia l

f unc t i on

CSR as acu l t u r a l

p r oduc t

Legend: The dott ed arrows ( ) indicate suggested research traj ectories for pluralistic CSR research



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.

Plura l iz ing CSR research m eth ods

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 Morgan’s (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.

DI SCUSSI ON AN D CONCLUSI ON

I m p l i ca t ions fo r 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 pre-

existing 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 paper’s use of Burrell and Morgan’s (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 de-

functionalize 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.

I m p l i ca t i ons f o r m anage r s

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 CSR-

as-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 society’s welfare (Marens,

2004).



References

Ackerman, R., & Bauer, R. 1976. Corpor a te soc ia l respons iveness : The m odern

d i l e m m a . 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. Academ y o f Managemen t Rev iew , 32(3): 836-863.

Ashby, W. R. 1956. A n I n t r oduc t i on t o Cy be r ne t i c s . London: Chapman and Hall.

Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1983. Central Perspectives and debates in

organization theory. Adm in is t ra t i v e Sc ience Quar te r l y , 28: 245-273.

Bakan, J. 2004. The Corpor a t ion . The pa tho log ica l pu rsu i t o f p r o f i t and pow er .

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. Bus iness and Soc ie ty , 44: 283-317.

Banerjee, B. 2003. Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and

the reinvention of nature. Organ izat ion Stud ies , 24: 143-180.

Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: A process model of

sensemaking. Academy o f Management Rev iew , (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.) U n f o ld i ng s t ak eho lde r t h i nk i ng : Theo r y ,

respons ib i l i t y and engagement : 101-118. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An

overview and assessment. Annua l Rev iew o f Socio logy , 26: 611-640.

Berg, I., & Zald, M.N. 1978. Business and society. Annua l Rev iew o f Socio logy , 4:



115-143.

Berger, P., & Luckman, T. 1966. The soc ia l cons t ru c t ion o f rea l i t y : A Trea t i se in

t he s oci o l ogy o f k now ledge . Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why and how

consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. Cal i f o rn ia Managem ent

Review , 47(1): 9-24.

Bowen, H. R. 1953. The Soc ia l Respons ib i l i t ies o f th e Bus inessman . New York:

Harper and Row.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Soc io log ica l Parad igm s and Organ isat iona l

Analys is . Elem ent s o f the Soc io logy of Corpor ate L i fe . Newcastle:

Athenaeum Press.

Callon, M. 1998. Introduction: the embeddedness of economic markets in economics

approach. In M. Callon (ed.) The Laws o f t h e Marke ts : 1-57. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Campbell, J. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An

institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academ y o f Managem ent

Review , 32(3): 946-967.

Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social

performance. Academy o f Management Rev iew , 4: 497-505.

Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility. Evolution of a definitional construct.

Bus iness and Soc ie ty , 38: 268-295.

Clark, J. M. 1916. The changing basis of economic responsibility. Journ a l o f Po li t i ca l

Economy , 24: 209-229.

Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating

corporate social performance. Academy o f Management Rev iew , 20: 92-117.



Davis, K. 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities.

Academ y o f Managem ent Rev iew , 2: 70-76.

Deegan, C. 2002. Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental

disclosures – A theoretical foundation. Accoun t ing , Aud i t i ng and

Accoun t ab i l i t y Journa l , 15: 282-311.

Deetz, S. 1996. Describing differences in approaches to organization science.

Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organizat ion Science , 7: 191-

208.

Déjean, F., Gond, J.-P., & Leca, B. 2004. Measuring the unmeasured: an institutional

entrepreneur strategy in an emergent industry. Hum an Re la t ions , 57(6): 740-

765.

Donaldson, L. 1996. For pos i t i v i s t o rgan izat ion t heory : P rov ing th e hard core .

London: Sage.

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. 1999. Toward a unified conception of business ethcis:

Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy o f Management Rev iew , 37:

414-446.

Economis t 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 o f Managem ent Journa l , 35: 699-738.

European Commission 2001. Pr om o t i ng a Eu r opean f r am ew or k f o r c or po r a t e

socia l respons ib i l i t y . Green Paper of the European Commission. COM(2001)

366, July. European Commission 2006. I m p l e m e n t i n g t h e p a r t n e r sh i p f o r g r o w t h a n d j o b s:





psychology. Br i t i sh Journ a l o f Managem ent , 12: 41-48.

Hoffman, A. J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S.

chemical industry. Academy o f Managem ent Journa l , 42: 351-372.

Jensen, M. C. 2001. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate

objective function. Journ a l o f Corpor a te App l ied Finance , 14: 8-21.

Jones, M. T. 1996. Missing the forest for the trees. A critique of the social responsibility

concept and discourse. Bus iness and Soc ie ty , 35: 7-41.

Korten, D. C. 2001. When c o r po r a t i ons r u l e t he w o r l d . 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 Ox fo r d Handb ook on Corpor a te Socia l Respons ib i l i t y : forthcoming.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Latour, B. 2005. Reass em b l i ng t h e Socia l : An I n t r oduc t i on t o A c t o r - N e t w o r k -

Theory . Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Levitt, T. 1958. The dangers of social responsibility. Harvar d Bus iness Rev iew , 36:

41-50.

Lewis , M. W., & Grimes, A. J. 1999. Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple

paradigms. Academ y o f Managemen t Rev iew , 24: 672-690.

Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in management

research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journ a l o f

Management S tud ies , 43: 115-136.

Maignan, I. 2001. Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-

cultural comparison. Journ al o f Bus iness Eth ics , 30: 57-72.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. 2001. Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument –



Concepts, evidence and research directions. Europ ean Journ a l o f Marke t ing ,

35: 457-484.

Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.:

Insights from businesses' self-presentations. Jou r na l o f I n t e r na t i ona l

Bus iness Stu d ies , 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. Journ a l o f

Academ ic Eth ics , 2: 63-87.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives

by business? Adm in is t ra t i ve Sc ience Quar t e r l y , 48: 268-305.

Markham, J. W. 2002. A f inanc ia l h i s to ry o f t h e Un i t ed S ta tes . Vo l . I . From

Ch r i s t ophe r Co lum bus t o t he R obber B a r ons ( 1492 –1900 ) . Armonk NY,

M.E. Sharpe.

Matten, D. & Moon, J. 2008. ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for

understanding CSR in Europe. Academy o f Management Rev iew

(forthcoming).

Matten, D., & Crane, A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical

conceptualization. Academ y o f Managem ent Rev iew , 30(1): 166-179.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm

perspective. Academy o f Management Rev iew , 26: 117-127.

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic

implications. Journ a l o f Managem ent S tud ies , 43: 1-18

Mitnick, B. 2000. Commitment, revelation and the testament of belief: the metrics of

measurement of CSP. Bus iness and Soc ie ty , 39: 419-465.

Moon, J. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: An overview. In: I n t e r n a t i o n a l



Di rec to ry o f Corpor a te Ph i lan th ropy , London, Europa Publications.

Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. 2005. Can corporations be citizens? Corporate

citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Bus iness Eth ics

Quar te r l y , 15: 427-451.

Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory.

Adm in is t ra t i v e Sc ience Quar t e r l y , 25: 605-623.

Organ iza t ion 1988. 5(2), Special Issue.

Orlitzky, M., Rynes, F. L., & Schmidt, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial

performance: A meta-analysis. Organ iza t ion Stu d ies , 24: 103-441.

Parsons, T. 1966. Soc ie t ies. Evo lu t ionary and compara t i ve perspec t i ves .

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall

Pasquero, J. 1996. Stakeho lder t heor y as a cons t ruc t i v i s t pa rad igm . Paper

presented at the Conference of the International Association for Business and

Society, San Diego, US.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. 1978. The ex t e rna l con t r o l o f o rgan iza t ion s : A resource

dependence perspec t i ve . 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 Bus iness

Review , 12: 78-92.

Preston, L. E. 1975. Corporation and society: the search for a paradigm. Journ a l o f

Econom ic Li t e ra t u re , 13: 434-454.

Preston, L. E., &, Post, J. 1975. Pr iva t e managem ent and pu b l i c po l i cy : The

p r in c ip le o f pub l i c respons ib i l i t y . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Rao, M. V. H., & Pasmore, W. A. 1989. Knowledge and interests in organization studies:

A conflict of interpretations. Organ izat ion Stud ies , 10: 225-239.



Rowley, T. J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder

influences. Academ y o f Managemen t Rev iew , 22: 887-910.

Rowley, T. J., & Berman, S. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance.

Bus iness and Soc ie ty , 39: 397-418.

Rowley, T. J., & Moldeveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-

and identity-based model of stakeholder mobilization. Academy o f

Management Rev iew , 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. Journa l

o f O rgan iza t iona l Behav iour , 27: 537-543.

Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. 2007. Towards a political conception of corporate

responsibility – business and society seen from an Habermasian perspective.

Academ y o f Managem ent Rev iew , 32(4) (in press).

Schuler, D. A., & Cording, M. 2006. A Corporate social performance – corporate

financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academ y o f

Management Rev iew , 31/3: 540-558.

Shamir, R. 2005. Mind the gap: Commodifying corporate social responsibility.

Sy m bo l i c I n t e r ac t i on , 28: 229-253.

Smircich, L. 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. A dm in i s t r a t i v e

Sc ience Quar ter ly , 28: 339-359.

Starkey, K., & Crane, A. 2003. Toward green narrative: management and the

evolutionary epic. Academy o f Management Rev iew , 28: 220-243.

Stern, R. N., & Barley, S. R. 1996. Organizations and social systems: Organization

theory’s neglected mandate. Admin is t ra t i ve Science Quar t e r l y , 41: 146–162.

Strand, R. 1983. A system paradigm of organizational adaptation to the social

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bNKtau0SK%2bk63nn5KyLs6i1TbSmr1ivqK1JsqWwSK6snkmwsLJNuKizOM7DpIzw1%2byL39nyge3k53y7o7FIsKyxSbWnrz7q1%2bx%2fu9vsPuLYu3rz3qSM3927Wcyc34a7qbdQrqywSqTc7Yrr1%2fJV5OvqhNLb9owA&hid=17

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bNKtau0SK%2bk63nn5KyLs6i1TbSmr1ivqK1JsqWwSK6snkmwsLJNuKizOM7DpIzw1%2byL39nyge3k53y7o7FIsKyxSbWnrz7q1%2bx%2fu9vsPuLYu3rz3qSM3927Wcyc34a7qbdQrqywSqTc7Yrr1%2fJV5OvqhNLb9owA&hid=17



environment. Academ y o f Managem ent Rev iew , 8: 90-97.

Swanson, D. L. 1995. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the Corporate

Social Performance model. Academ y o f Managemen t Rev iew , 20: 43-64.

Swanson, D. L. 1999. Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research

strategy for corporate social performance. Academy o f Management Rev iew ,

24: 506-521.

Tetlock, P. E. 2000. Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease

and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Adm in is t ra t i ve Science

Quar te r l y , 45: 293–326.

Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. 1981. A need-hierarchy framework for assessing

corporate social responsibility. Academy o f Managem ent Rev iew , 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 o f Management Rev iew , 10: 540-557.

Vogel, D. 2005. The m ar k e t f o r v i r t ue . The po t en t i a l and l im i t s o f c o r po r a t e

socia l respons ib i l i t y . Washigton: Brookings institution Press.

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial

performance link. St r a teg ic Managem ent Journa l , 18: 303-319.

Walsh, J.P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. 2003. Social Issues and Management: Our Lost

Cause Found. Journ a l o f Managem ent , 29: 859-882.

Whittington, R. 2006. Completing the practice turn in strategy research: The work of

strategizing and organizing: for a practice perspective. Organ izat ion Stud ies ,

27(5): 613-634.

Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academ y o f Managem ent

Review , 16: 691-718.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000084848996&Fmt=6&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=3&Sid=6&RQT=309






Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. 1995. Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in

empirical research in corporate social performance. I n t e r na t i ona l Jou r na l o f

O rgan iza t iona l Ana lys is , 3: 229-267.



Research Paper Ser ies

I n t e rna t iona l Cen t r e fo r Corpor a te Soc ial Respons ib i l it y

I SSN 1479 -512 4

Edi t or : Jean- Pascal Gon dThe ICCSR Research Papers Series is intended as a first-hand outlet for research outputof ICCSR. These include papers presented at symposiums and seminars, first drafts of papers intended for submission in journals and other reports on ongoing or completedresearch projects.The objective of the ICCSR Research Papers Series is twofold: First, there is a timegoal: Given the quality of ICCSR publication, the targeted journals normally requirelarge time spans between submission and publication. Consequently, the ICCSRResearch Papers Series serves as a preliminary airing to working papers of ICCSR staff and affiliates which are intended for subsequent publication. By this, research outputcan be made available for a selected public which will not only establish ICCSR’s lead in

advancing and developing innovative research in CSR but will also open the opportunityto expose ideas to debate and peer scrutiny prior to submission and/or subsequentpublication. 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 serveas a primary data resource for further publications. Publication in the ICCSR ResearchPaper Series does not preclude publication in refereed journals.The ICCSR Research Papers Series consequently is interested in assuring high qualityand broad visibility in the field. The quality aspect will be assured by establishing aprocess of peer review, which will normally include the Editor of the ICCSR ResearchPapers 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 inmajor library catalogues worldwide. All papers can also be downloaded at the ICCSRwebsite.

Publ ished Papers

No. 01-2003 Wendy Chapple & Richard HarrisAccounting for solid waste generation in measures of regional productivitygrowth

No. 02-2003 Christine CouplandCorporate identities on the web: An exercise in the construction anddeployment of ‘morality’

No. 03-2003 David L. OwenRecent developments in European social and environmental reporting andauditing practice – A critical evaluation and tentative prognosis

No. 04-2003 Dirk Matten & Andrew CraneCorporate Citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization

No. 05-2003 Karen Williams, Mike Geppert & Dirk MattenChallenges for the German model of employee relations in the era of globalization



No. 06-2003 Iain A. Davies & Andrew CraneEthical Decision Making in Fair Trade Companies

No. 07-2003 Robert J. CaruanaMorality in consumption: Towards a sociological perspective

No. 08-2003 Edd de Coverly, Lisa O’Malley & Maurice PattersonHidden mountain: The social avoidance of waste

No. 09-2003 Eleanor Chambers, Wendy Chapple, Jeremy Moon & Michael SullivanCSR in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting

No. 10-2003 Anita Fernandez Young & Robert YoungCorporate Social Responsibility: the effects of the Federal CorporateSentencing Guidelines on a representative self-interested corporation

No. 11-2003 Simon Ashby, Swee Hoon Chuah & Robert HoffmannIndustry self-regulation: A game-theoretic typology of strategic voluntarycompliance

No. 12-2003 David A. Waldman, Donald Siegel & Mansour JavidanTransformational leadership and CSR: A meso level approach

No. 13-2003 Jeremy Moon, Andrew Crane & Dirk MattenCan corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor forbusiness participation in society (2nd Edition)

No. 14-2003 Anita Fernandez Young, Jeremy Moon & Robert YoungThe UK Corporate Social Responsibility consultancy industry: aphenomenological approach

No. 15-2003 Andrew CraneIn the company of spies: The ethics of industrial espionage

No. 16-2004 Jan Jonker, Jacqueline Cramer and Angela van der HeijdenDeveloping Meaning in Action: (Re)Constructing the Process of EmbeddingCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Companies

No. 17-2004 Wendy Chapple, Catherine J. Morrison Paul & Richard HarrisManufacturing and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Cost Implicationsof Voluntary Waste Minimisation

No. 18-2004 Brendan O’Dwyer

Stakeholder Democracy: Challenges and Contributions from AccountancyNo. 19-2004 James A. FitchettBuyers be Wary: Marketing Stakeholder Values and the Consumer

No. 20-2004 Jeremy MoonGovernment as a Driver of Corporate Social Responsibility: The UK inComparative Perspective

No. 21-2004 Andrew Crane and Dirk MattenQuestioning the Domain of the Business Ethics Curriculum: Where the Lawends or Where it Starts?

No. 22-2004 Jem BendellFlags of inconvenience? The global compact and the future of United Nations

No. 23-2004 David Owen and Brendan O’DwyerAssurance Statement Quality in Environmental, Social and Sustainability

Reporting: a Critical Evaluation of Leading Edge PracticeNo. 24-2004 Robert J. Caruana

Morality in consumption: towards a multidisciplinary perspectiveNo. 25-2004 Krista Bondy, Andy Crane & Laura Browne

Doing the Business: A film series programmed by ICCSR in conjunction withBroadway Cinema

No. 26-2004 Stanley ChapmanSocially Responsible Supply Chains: Marks & Spencer in Historic Perspective



No. 27-2004 Kate Grosser and Jeremy MoonGender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility: ReportingWorkplace Issues

No. 28-2004 Jacqueline Cramer, Angela van der Heijden and Jan JonkerCorporate 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 inEurope

No. 30-2005 Nigel Roome and Jan JonkerWhistling in the Dark

No. 31-2005 Christine HemingwayThe Role of Personal Values in Corporate Social Entrepreneurship

No. 32-2005 David OwenCorporate Social Reporting and Stakeholder Accountability The Missing Link

No. 33-2005 David OwenCSR After Enron: A Role for the Academic Accounting Profession?

No. 34-2006 Judy Muthuri, Jeremy Moon and Dirk MattenEmployee 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 ReportingChoices

No. 36-2006 Amanda BallEnvironmental Accounting as ‘Workplace Activism’

No. 37–2006 Kenneth M. Amaeshi & Bongo AdiReconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Utlish

No. 38-2006 Aly SalamaThe ICCSR UK Environmental & Financial Dataset 1991-2002

No. 39-2006 Kenneth M Amaeshi, Bongo C Adi, Chris Ogbechie and Olufemi O AmaoCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Nigeria: western mimicry orindigenous 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 PijkerenIn Search of Business Strategies for CSR

No. 42-2006 Stephanos AnastasiadisUnderstanding corporate lobbying on its own terms

No. 43-2006 Nahee KangAnalysing ‘System Change’: The Role of Institutional Complementarity inCorporate Governance

No. 44-2006 M. Shahid Ebrahim and Ehsan AhmedCooperative Home Financing

No. 45-2006 Nahee KangA 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 MultinationalCorporations: Clarifications and Managerial Implications

No. 47-2007 Jean-Pascal Gond & Dirk MattenRethinking the Business-Society Interface: Beyond the Functionalist Trap

Documents

Theory Pluralistic CSR2