Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Current

Chapter 2

Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Current Concepts, Research, and Issues Archie B. Carroll and Jill A. Brown

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to introduce and provide an overview of the topic of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The approach is to present an introduction to the importance of the topic and a review of the concept's evolution and development which includes an exploration of the topic's meaning and competing and complementary frameworks which are related. Among these related concepts are the following: business ethics, stakeholder management, sustainability, corporate citizenship, creating shared value, conscious capitalism, and purpose-driven business. These concepts are frequently used interchangeably with C S R , and they have more in common than differences. At their core, each embraces value, balance, and accountability. The chapter also explores a number of key research avenues that are quite contemporary. Among these, the following topics are addressed: political C S R ; the C S P - C F P relationship and business case for CSR; upstream/downstream C S R ; C S R in emerging economies, corporate social activism, and corporate social irresponsibility. In the final analysis, it is argued that the topic of C S R continues to

Carroll, Archie B. & Brown, Jill A. (2018) Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Current Concepts, Research and Issues. In Weber, J . & Wasleleski, D. (Eds.) Corporate Social Responsibility. U.K.: Emerald Publishing Co., Chapter 2, pp. 39-69.

40

Archie B. Carroll and Jill A. Brown

be on an upward and sustainable trajectory in both conceptual development and practice. Keywords: Corporate social responsibility (CSR); business ethics; stakeholder management; sustainability; creating shared value; conscious capitalism

The topic of corporate social responsibihty (CSR), sometimes referred to as corporate responsibility ( C R ) , has a rich and varied history. The seeds of C S R are traceable to the foundations of capitalism and the birth and rise of the corporate form of business organization. Its history may be traced in the turbulent rise of the corporation in the late 1800s through the turn of the century and into the progressive era and a new business—government relationship in the first couple decades of the twentieth century (Carroll, Lipartito, Post, Werhane, & Goodpaster, 2012). It could well be argued that C S R came of age in the post-World War I I period. During this time, corporate legitimacy was affirmed and a revolution of rising expectations came to bear on businesses. The impetus for businesses assuming responsibilities beyond that owed to their shareholders took off in the 1960s after some initial discussions caught the public's attention in the 1950s. In the 1960s, four public concerns that touched businesses formalized into the early stages of social movements. The four social movements focused on; civil rights, environment, consumers, and women. Each of these topic areas was related to the others in the sense that they addressed expectations and perceived rights that businesses were expected to deliver in addition to the standard returns on investments to shareholders. In the early 1970s, several of these areas transformed into legal mandates as the field of CSR took off. The history of the C S R movement has been addressed comprehensively elsewhere (Carroll, 2008). In addition, William C. Frederick, one of the founders of the study of CSR in the United States, has given a valuable and exhaustive discussion of the topic in his book Corporation Be Good! The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility (Frederick, 2006). By contrast, the objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the concept including some of the current and emerging issues in CSR. The study and practice of C S R is on a sustainable trajectory, due to an

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 41 exploding number of researchers and practitioners worldwide who are using the core concept and are striving to provide innovations in its conceptualization, relationship to interconnected frameworks, themes and variables, and practice. The popularity of C S R among consumers, employees, and other stakeholder groups has been documented in many studies over the past several decades. Several findings in the second annual C R survey sponsored by Aflac. a leader in voluntary insurance sales at the worksite, lend support to this popularity. Among the revelations revealed in the 2016 Aflac survey, conducted in the United States, were the following {PR Newswire, 2016): • Seventy-five percent of consumers are likely to take some negative action toward irresponsible companies. These actions range from social media postings to boycotts of the companies. • Irresponsible companies stand to lose as much as 39% of its potential customer base. One in four consumers will tell their friends and family to avoid these companies. • Eighty-three percent of professional investors are more inclined to invest in the stock of companies that are known for its CSR. They view these initiatives as an indicator of greater transparency and honesty, which results in lower risk. In light of this background and these findings, in this chapter, we will review developments in terms of CSR's conceptual meaning, its relationship to competing and complementary frameworks, and recent research topics, issues, and practices. As in so many other social science fields, there is no singular definition or paradigm of the C S R construct and, therefore, some of the classic and recent perspectives will be explored, including consideration of the dimensions that make up the C S R construct. Competing and complementary frameworks have arrived on the scene and many of these overlap significantly with the core attributes and principles of CSR but take on different perspectives in their emphases. Some of these alternative concepts include corporate citizenship, sustainability, stakeholder management, business ethics, conscious capitalism, creating shared value, and purpose-driven businesses. Ancillary theories, such as political C S R (PCSR) have become popular lately and highlight the reality that C S R varies around the world and is somewhat dependent upon the sociopolitical and institutional

42


infrastructure of the country in which it is evolving. The context in which C S R occurs shapes its focus and applications. Research on C S R continues to explore the relationships between C S R , defined in many different ways, and other independent and dependent variables. For example, the relationship between C S R and corporate financial performance (CFP) has been a topic of uninterrupted research, evolving into an enduring passion for the "business case" for C S R . CSR's applicability in emerging economies is another topic of recent and continuing exploration. In terms of practice, corporate activism on social issues is increasing in frequency, and a preoccupation with sustainable development and climate change appear to be popular emphases. As regularly has been the case, there is a certain degree of faddishness in business's selection of nomenclature, but pressures from activists have changed the landscape of C S R focus for business, with some positive and some negative consequences. Finally, a concern for corporate social //-responsibility (CSiR) has arrived on the scene. In its simple form, CSiR might be seen as residing on one end of a continuum wherein C S R occupies the opposite end. In such an interpretation, CSiR would embrace corporate activities that are illegal, perhaps marginally legal but severely unsustainable, and/or unethical (Tench, Sun, & Jones, 2012). Whether CSiR will emerge as its own distinct construct is still to be seen, as researchers suggest different definitions, characteristics, and measures. The thought, however, is that much can be learned by researching irresponsible corporations and related variables as opposed to responsible ones. In sum, this chapter addresses current and emerging issues in C S R that provide both opportunities and challenges for researchers and practitioners alike.

CSR's Conceptual Development and Meaning One way to begin thinking about CSR is to dissect or examine minutely, part by part, each of the words for which C S R stands. Corporate not only refers to corporate forms of business organizations but has evolved to include all businesses, large, medium, or small. Society today focuses more on large organizations because they are so visible. However, smaller enterprises are referenced and included as well. In essence, then, "corporate" could also be articulated as "business." We will continue to use the accepted terminology which is corporate. Social refers to human

Corporate Social Responsibility Review

43

society or to tlie life or welfare of a community. The notion of society encompasses communities, states, nations, and the world, as applicable. Society is often thought of as the full array of stakeholders that may be affected by a business's decisions or actions. Further, the concept of society today embraces other living organisms (e.g., animals and plants) and the natural environment as well. Responsibility refers to businesses being held accountable for what is subject to their power, control, or management. Responsibility implies a "burden for" or an "obligation." It is the state or condition of being held accountable by society. Hopefully, this explication of the terms involved in C S R will be helpful in understanding the full range of what is being discussed. C S R has been conceptualized and defined in a multitude of ways over the decades. I f we limit our consideration of C S R to the period from about the 1950s on, we capture the flavor of changes that have been occurring over the past half century or more. Howard Bowen got the ball rolling in his 1953 landmark book The Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Bowen, 1953). As the book's title suggests, there were few business women during this period, or at least they were not acknowledged in formal writings. Bowen's definition of social responsibilities was as follows: "It refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those poHcies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society" (Bowen, 1953, p. 6). Business people and academics were not completely won over by his argument though many found it appealing. In fact, in 1958, Theodore Levitt, a recognized scholar at the Harvard Business School authored a paper in which he identified "The Dangers of Social Responsibility" (Levitt, 1958). Levitt emphasized businesses' primary goal of long-run profit maximization, and he reasoned that government should take care of the general welfare so business could address the material aspects of welfare. The strongest opponent of C S R was the well-known economist Milton Friedman who argued that social issues were not the concern of businesspeople but that they should be handled by the unrestrained workings of the free market system. Friedman was often cited for his pronouncement that managements should "make as much money as possible..." (Friedman, 1962). I f you read carefully the rest of Friedman's quote, however, you discover that he said the purpose of business was "to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of society, both those embodied in the law and those embodied in ethical customs" (Italics added). In short, Friedman apparently was okay with firms conforming to law and ethics, which today are

44


often embraced in definitions of CSR. This is quite a different picture than that originally attributed to Friedman (Friedman, 1962, p. 33). In the 1960s, a number of writers enthusiastically advocated C S R , and the Uterature on the topic began to expand. One of the early concerns with the concept was whether an emphasis should be placed on responsibility or accountability or whether it should be placed on corporate action. Ackerman and Bauer were among the first to raise this concern. They believed that the expression "social responsibility" placed too much emphasis on motivation rather than performance. They went on to argue that "social responsiveness" was a preferable orientation (Ackerman & Bauer, 1976). Picking up on this same idea, Frederick distinguished between what he called C S R | , the more standard understanding of C S R entailing accountability, and C S R 2 which he labeled corporate social "responsiveness," which focused on the literal act of responding (Frederick, 1978). Following this, a concern for corporate social performance (CSP) arose. The emphasis on the "performance" aspect of C S R was intended to suggest that what really matters is a combination of what companies believe they owe society, their responsiveness to these obligations, but especially the results they are able to achieve in a performance sense. Building on this idea, Carroll proposed a CSP model which embraced three dimensions: a basic definition of CSR, a statement of the firm's philosophy of responsiveness, and an identification of the social issue arenas (consumers, environment, discrimination, etc.) in which these would be played out or implemented (Carroll, 1979). Wartick and Cochran extended Carroll's model by reasoning that these three dimensions be thought of as depicting principles (CSR, reflecting a philosophical orientation), processes (responsiveness, reflecting an institutional orientation, and policies (social issues in management, reflecting an organizational orientation) (Wartick & Cochran, 1985). Later, Wood elaborated and reformulated Carroll's model and Wartick and Cochran's extensions and proposed that C S P entailed "a business organization's configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness and policies, programs and other observable outcomes as they related to the firm's societal relationships" (Wood, 1991). From this point forward, the idea of C S R as encapsulating these multiple dimensions, especially an emphasis on what actually is being achieved, became an implied understanding when the concept of CSR was used. The term C S R continued to be used in practice, but it was

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 45 understood that these other aspects were embedded in the concept as well. With an understanding that performance was a key component, definitions of CSR proliferated in the 1970s and 1980s. More empirical research began on the topic, and alternative themes such as stakeholder theory and business ethics exploded in interest (Carroll, 1999). From this time forward, the definitions of C S R began taking on a similar perspective. Jeremy Moon, in addressing the question "What is CSR?" in his 2014 book on the topic, points to three definitions that he says today capture the development of definitions of C S R — definitions by Keith Davis, Archie Carroll, and Dirk Matten and Jeremy Moon (Moon, 2014). In 1973, Keith Davis defined C S R as "the firm's consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm" (Davis, 1973). Davis was one of the strongest advocates for C S R throughout the 1960s. In fact, in earlier articles, he stated that social responsibility referred to "decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm's direct economic or technical interest" (Davis, 1960). In 1979, Archie Carroll defined CSR as "the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time" (Carroll, 1979). Carroll later referred to the discretionary expectation as "philanthropic" because that is how it so often was manifested in business (Carroll, 1991). Carroll's definition fully embraced both the economic and legal expectations that society placed on business organizations as part of a broader scope of CSR. Moon points out that whereas the Davis definition focuses on the non-core elements of the business, the Carroll definition assumes that the responsibility is for all facets of the company. The third definition highlighted is by Dirk Matten and Jeremy Moon. Matten and Moon define C S R as "policies and practices of corporations that reflect business responsibility for some of the wider societal good. Yet the precise manifestation and direction of the responsibility lie at the discretion of the corporation" (Matten & Moon, 2008). This third definition emphasizes that C S R is for societal good and that corporate managers have some discretion in deciding how to respond. Moon goes on to say that numerous definitions of CSR by academics and business people capture the following features (Moon, 2014, p. 4): • Business responsibility to society (i.e., being accountable). • Business responsibihty for society (i.e., in compensating for negative impacts and adding to societal welfare).

46


• Business's responsible conduct (i.e., ethically, responsibly, and sustainably). Over the decades, dozens of different definitions and conceptualizations of C S R have been proposed and set forth. In one major study, for example, Alexander Dahlsrud identified and analyzed 37 different definitions of C S R (Dahlsrud, 2008). Dahlsrud's research points out how difficult it is to nail down exactly what C S R means though most of the definitions found have much in common. Through a content analysis of published C S R definitions set forth between 1980 and 2003, Dahlsrud found the following to be the most frequent dimensions of the definitions: stakeholder, social, economic, voluntariness, and environmental (Dahlsrud, 2008, p. 5). The definitions discussed so far were articulated primarily by academics. But, how does the public-at-large think about CSR? In one major study, the public was asked to identify which of 74 attributes described a business that is socially responsible and a good corporate citizen. In this survey of 2800 members of NPD's Home Testing Institute panel, responses were returned by 1037 subjects constituting a 37% response rate. The top five attributes of social responsibility turned out to be companies that (Carroll, Sullivan, & Markowitz, 1995): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Make products that are safe. Do not pollute air or water. Obey the law in all aspects of business. Promote honest/ethical employee behavior. Are committed to safe workplace policies.

An interesting observation about most of these top attributes is that they reflect activities which any deviation from would likely constitute irresponsibility. Ranked lower were voluntary activities. This finding indicates that sound business practices must be the foundation for any company desiring to be socially responsible (Carroll et al., 1995). In terms of Carroll's four-part definition of C S R , these five attributes would fall more in the categories of legal and ethical responsibilities than philanthropic responsibilities. It is also interesting to observe that many businesses promote their voluntary or philanthropic activities as a profile of their C S R rather than these five factors. In short, safe products and workplaces, a clean environment, legal compliance, and honesty are more urgent to the general public than the multitude of giveaway programs used by business to promote their CSR. In spite of

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 47 this, many observers still think of C S R as activities that are of an ethically justified or discretionary, voluntary (e.g., philanthropy) nature. Most of the above discussion of C S R pertains to uses and applications in the United States. Though scholars have long recognized that C S R may vary in different parts of the world, these differences did not become a frequently discussed issue until Matten and Moon differentiated between "implicit" and "explicit" C S R (Matten & Moon, 2008). Matten and Moon argued that C S R varies depending upon specific, national contexts. Thus, they argued that CSR is more "explicit" in the United States and normally consists of voluntary, self-interest-driven policies, programs and strategies as is typical in the U.S.-based understandings of CSR. By contrast, "implicit" C S R embraces the entirety of a country's formal and informal institutions that assign corporations an agreed upon share of responsibility for society's concern. Implicit CSR, as seen in the United Kingdom, Europe, and elsewhere, embraces the values, norms, and rules evident in the local culture. Thus, C S R is more imphcitly understood and accepted in Europe because it is more a part of their cultural institutions, especially government, than in the United States. In Europe, and some other countries, particular aspects of C S R are more or less decreed or imposed by institutions, such as government, whereas in the United States C S R is thought to be more voluntary, discretionary, and often manifested in response to pressure from special interest groups or adopted because of a management philosophy, policy, or strategy. As a result, explicit CSR is more hkely found in liberal market economies, and implicit C S R is more likely found in coordinated market economies in which collectivism and partnership governance is more evident (Matten &. Moon, 2008, p. 411). An extreme form of implicit CSR can be seen in India where in 2013 the Government of India mandated C S R guidelines requiring companies to spend 2% of their net profits on social development. India claims to be the first country to make C S R a part of law with the passage of The Companies Act {The Guardian, 2014, August 11). There is an ongoing debate regarding the wisdom of this new law. Whereas the country certainly needs social development and improved business-and-society relationships, some are concerned that this "forced" philanthropy could lead to "tick the box" practices, tokenism, or even corruption as companies seek to mask data to avoid complying. The Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs estimates that around 6,000 corporations will be required to undertake C S R projects to meet this law and many of these companies will be engaging in this type of social spending for the first lime. Only time will tell whether this new law will lead to improving

48


people's lives and preventing environmental degradation while sustaining businesses economically {The Guardian, 2014, August 11).

CSR and Competing and Complementary Concepts There has been considerable fluidity concerning the meaning of C S R over the decades. In addition to debates as to what all should be embraced in the concept of CSR, other concepts or frameworks have appeared in the literature and in corporate practice which are quite similar to C S R and have been proposed as alternate or improved frameworks for capturing the essence of business's responsibilities to and interactions with society. Among the leading contenders to capture the attention of scholars and practitioners have been the following major concepts or thematic frameworks: business ethics, stakeholder management, sustainability, corporate citizenship, conscious capitalism, creating shared value and corporate purpose-driven businesses. A brief consideration of each will point out why they have contended to be substitute concepts related to CSR. Business Ethics Ethical issues in society and business have been around for centuries, of course, but beginning in the 1980s the field of business ethics began to take shape. A major reason for this was the explosion of ethical scandals that began appearing in the news and the realization on the part of both philosophers and business administration academicians that this was a hot topic around which courses of instruction needed to be built. It is debatable whether the primary drivers were the highly visible scandals or whether the academics foresaw the importance of this topic and quickly responded. Clearly, the ethical scandals in the news expedited the growth of the topic and the field but the academic—practitioner interaction was definitely at work. It is easy to see how C S R and business ethics can be confusing. Philosopher Richard DeGeorge observed that "corporate social responsibility is part o/" business ethics" (DeGeorge, 1987). Others have suggested that C S R incorporates business ethics. A n example of this is the Carroll definition that suggests an ethical responsibility as part of his four-part construct (Carroll, 1979; DeGeorge, 1987). Carroll also goes on to say that the ethical dimension cuts through and permeates all four

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 49 of the responsibilities. Joyner and Payne have equaled C S R with business ethics. They have argued that these terms are similar enough to be used interchangeably (Joyner & Payne, 2002). In many instances, the terms C S R and business ethics have been used interchangeably so whether they do, in fact, differ is a never ending question. One distinction that has been made is that the term C S R refers to corporate or business level actions whereas business ethics pertains more to individual behavior and actions within the business organization framework. This is an attractive distinction. In popular writings, however, firms that have engaged in irresponsible behavior have been categorized as unethical organizations. So, the confusion is easy to understand. Both terms address questionable conduct of business organizations or the people within them so it is easy to see how the terms have become competitive with one another or, stated positively, are complementary to one another. Stakeholder Management Just as the field of business ethics "came of age" in the 1980s, the field of stakeholder theory or stakeholder management also became popular then. Similar to C S R , stakeholder theory, or its more applied form, stakeholder management, is built upon the idea that there are multiple constituencies — stakeholders — to whom businesses owe responsibiHties because they hold legal, ethical, or other types of stakes in the operation of the organization. Though the modern pioneer of stakeholder theory, R. Edward Freeman, introduced the stakeholder approach as a way of approaching the topic of strategic management and decision making, it quickly became obvious that the approach and nomenclature had considerable applicability to the fields of C S R and business ethics (Freeman, 1984). Freeman proposed a new and important level of strategy, that of enterprise strategy, that focused on firms asking the question "what do we stand for?" In answering that question, Freeman suggested that a values analysis and social issues analysis had to be conducted and that provided the Hnks with both C S R and business ethics (Freeman, 1984). Furthermore, the field of stakeholder management provided the fields of CSR, business ethics, and business-and-society with a set of terras and a method of analysis to help businesses and managers behave responsibly and in conformance with stakeholders' expectations. The broad description of "society" became different groups of specific

50


stakeholders each of which had different characteristics. Managers came to learn that there are different categories of stakeholders that varied in their legitimacy (validity of their claims and expectations), their power (ability to affect the organization), and their urgency (timeliness of their expectations) (Clarkson & Report of the Definitions Working Group, 1994). Using stakeholder nomenclature as a point of departure, five key questions have been identified as important for capturing the essential information needed for effective stakeholder management: (1) who are our organization's stakeholders, (2) what are our stakeholders' stakes, (3) what opportunities and challenges do stakeholders present to the firm, (4) what responsibilities (i.e., economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary/philanthropic) does the firm have to its stakeholders, and (5) what strategies or actions should management take to best address stakeholders' challenges and opportunities (Carroll, Brown, & Buchholtz, 2018). Question 4 highlights the obvious CSR and ethics dimensions of this stakeholder management approach. The stakeholder management framework is effortlessly seen to be consistent with both C S R and business ethics. Many companies today have created C S R Officers and Business Ethics Officers, and a number of firms have institutionalized stakeholder analysis and management as an approach to ensuring that its stakeholders are dealt with fairly and effectively.

Sustainability Beginning with a concern for the natural environment, the concept of sustainability has become one of business's most pressing mandates today, and the language of sustainability has been increasingly adopted by companies to describe their socially responsible pursuits. A major reason sustainability began to be used interchangeably with C S R was that John Elkington introduced the concept of the "triple bottom line" and linked it to the idea of sustainability. In the triple bottom hne, the emphasis was placed on the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity (Triple Bottom Line, 2009). The economic bottom line refers to the firm's creation of material wealth, including financial income and assets. Here the emphasis is on profits. The social bottom line is about the quality of people's lives and about equity between people, communities, and nations. Here the emphasis is on people. The environmental bottom line is about

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 51 conservation and protection of the natural environment — an emphasis on the planet (Zadek, 2001). Like the other concepts we have discussed, the concept of sustainability has experienced dozens of different definitions as well. Some critics have said that the concept is still somewhat vague and elusive, but this has not prevented many businesses and the academic community from adopting the concept and its terminology. One reason the business community may like it is that it is more neutral in that it doesn't have the subjective term "responsibility" in it and thus it does not elicit immediate, defensive objections. Similarly, it does not concentrate on malevolent behavior as business ethics is often perceived to do. It is rather logical and straight forward: take care of the present and take care of the future. Virtually no one would oppose this as a terminology and as a concept because it is so palatable. In addition, it focuses on the longterm perspective and it explicitly incorporates a concern for future generations which has been a central concern of environmentalists for decades (Carroll, 2015).

Corporate Citizenship The corporate citizenship nomenclature became popular in the businessand-society field in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was used primarily by the business community as a substitute term for C S R for some of the same reasons that sustainability became popular. It addressed businesses being good corporate citizens just like human beings were to be good citizens. In other words, the terminology did not ascribe any specific responsibilities or obligations to businesses that were not borne also by individual citizens. Thus, the term was more neutral, like sustainability, less accusing, and became preferred by many businesses. Academics also became fond of the term corporate citizenship and sought to define it and distinguish it from predecessor terms such as CSR. Though the terms sustainability and corporate citizenship both started becoming popular in the 1990s, the corporate citizenship language became more popular first only later giving way to the increasing attractiveness of sustainability. The concept of corporate citizenship was used by some experts in a narrow way and by others in a broader way. The narrow conception of corporate citizenship restricted its attention on "corporate community relations." In this vein, it came to embrace the roles and activities through which businesses interacted

52


with non-profit organizations, citizens' groups, and other stakeholder groups at the local community level (Altman, 1998). In the broader view, corporate citizenship came to be used as a substitute for CSR. Carroll, for example, at one time, framed his four categories of C S R as embracing the "four faces of corporate citizenship" — economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. In this usage, each face, aspect, or responsibility category revealed an important facet or dimension of corporate citizenship that contributed to the whole. He suggested that "just as private citizens are expected to fulfill these responsibilities, companies are as well" (Carroll, 1998). Also employing a broader perspective, Fombrum proposed a three-part view of corporate citizenship that encompassed (1) a reflection of shared ethical principles, (2) a vehicle for integrating individuals into the communities in which they work, and (3) a form of enlightened self-interest that balances all stakeholders' claims and enhances a company's long-term value (Fombrum, 1998). Other conceptions of the corporate citizenship framework fall in between these narrow and broader views and an even broader perspective embraced "global corporate citizenship" as companies increasingly were expected to conduct themselves appropriately wherever they did business around the world (Scherer & Palazzo, 2008). As a result of developing work on this topic, a definition of a global business citizen was presented: " A global business citizen is a business enterprise (including its managers) that responsibly exercises its rights and implements its duties to individuals, stakeholders, and societies within and across national and cultural borders" (Wood, Logsdon, Lewellyn, & Davenport, 2006). The global dimension made the corporate citizenship terminology even more appealing as it addressed how companies needed to adapt and align their conduct, policies, and practices to different parts of the globe. It also made it evident that this terminology was an acceptable substitute for "global C S R . " Other Competing Concepts In more recent days, three other concepts or frameworks have also become popular as competing and complementary notions to C S R . These include creating shared value (CSV), conscious capitalism, and purpose-driven businesses. The originators of CSV, Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, admit that CSV "overlaps" with C S R , but they assert that CSV is different. They see C S R as more of a "cost center" focused


53

on responsibility, whereas shared value creation is more about new opportunities and new markets — more of a "profit center" (Kramer, 2011, February 18). Whether this distinction is valid or not remains debatable. They go on to assert that shared value is created when companies treat social problems as business opportunities and then innovate toward addressing these opportunities. Though the idea of integrating social issues with strategic management had been around for a while, Porter and Kramer argued that CSV contributed to a real shift in management thinking (Kramer, 2011, February 18). Some have debated the CSV concept, arguing that it ignores some of the tensions and ethical issues inherent to responsible business activity and systems-level issues that are typically addressed in critical discussions of C S R (see, for example. Crane, Palazzo, Spence, & Matten, 2014; de los Teyes, Scholz, & Smith, 2017). Nevertheless, without getting into a debate whether C S R and CSV refer to the same phenomenon or not, it is apparent that the two concepts share considerable commonality in perspective and thus are overlapping. The concept of conscious capitalism was articulated by John Mackey, cofounder of Whole Foods, in collaboration with Raj Sisodia. These authors have argued that there are a growing number of businesses that are interested in more than making a profit. They argue that these businesses subscribe to the idea that their businesses have a higher purpose. Along those lines, they have developed a set of principles which they assert guide these businesses (Mackay & Sisodia, 2013, January 14). According to the Conscious Capitalism credo, the movement is all about "a way of thinking about capitalism and business that better reflects where we are in the human journey, the state of our world today, and the innate potential of business to make a positive impact on the world" (Conscious Capitalism Credo, 2017). Conscious capitalism is based on four principles: a higher purpose, stakeholder orientation, conscious leadership, and a conscious culture (Conscious Capitalism Credo, 2017). I f one carefully examines the concept of conscious capitalism, however, the rudiments of C S R , stakeholder management, business ethics, corporate citizenship, sustainability, and creating value are all evident. I f one examines the companies that claim to be identified with conscious capitalism, the same finding would be evident: They are basically the same companies that would identify with C S R and the other surrogate terms we have been discussing. Finally, purpose-driven businesses should be mentioned. The idea behind the purpose-driven nomenclature is that of businesses focusing on a societal need or needs to address along with operating a

54


profitable enterprise (Hower, 2016, January 28). The idea of a purposedriven business sounds a lot like mission driven- and vision-driven enterprises, but the identification of some social purpose beyond growing the enterprise is a key difference. Beyond this difference, the notion of purpose-driven businesses does not seem to be all that different than some of the previous concepts discussed except that the clearer emphasis is on the idea that the enterprise can get behind and be energized by the idea that it has a clearly stated purpose that extends beyond the usual. One writer, for example, has argued that the pursuit of a purpose, other than profits, mobilizes people and resources so that they become sustainable drivers of the organization's culture. To be successful, then, the ; organization needs to be authentic, bring in the right people (presumably those committed to the purpose), create shared value, and be accompanied by a compelling, clear, and comprehensive narrative (Hakimi, 2015, July 21). Of all the different terminologies discussed so far, the idea of being a purpose-driven business seems to squarely correlate with all the other terms that have been identified. To be sure, each of these other concepts would concur that they are purpose-driven and that their purpose extends beyond making a profit. What do these competing and complementary concepts have in common? While analyzing five of the overlapping frameworks presented — CSR, business ethics, stakeholder management, sustainability, and corporate citizenship — Schwartz and Carroll observed that, at their core, they have much in common (Schwartz & Carroll, 2008, see also, Schwartz, 2011). And, adding in the remaining concepts — conscious capitalism, creating shared value, and purpose-driven businesses - their analysis would seem to be inclusive of them as well. When expressed in their broader versions, there is a large amount of confusion that could result unless one knew exactly how each term was being defined, used, and the context in which it was being discussed. Boiled down to their s essentials, however, the authors argued that there were three core ideas central to each framework. The three core ideas included: (1) value, (2) balance, and (3) accountability. They term this a V B A framework. An important element underlying the entire business-and-society field is the generation of value. As contrasted with mere long-term value maximization of the firm, however, the idea of value proposed here suggests that all firms have an obligation to work toward generating net societal values. In short, business firms are expected to improve the general welfare of society (Schwartz & Carroll, 2008; Waddock, 2002, pp. 168-169). Enhanced long-term value of both the firm and society is an outcome component. Each of the terms and concepts discussed

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 55 above is concerned with business activities generating value to society. The concept of balance suggests that striving for societal value, a utihtarian concern, is not enough. There also must be a degree of balance that is maintained in addressing and responding to possible stakeholder interests or ethical standards and expectations. Balance is the process component of the V B A framework, whereby businesses, managers, and employees would take steps to achieve appropriate balance among competing stakeholder interests and concerns. The concept of balance may be found in all the frameworks discussed above (Waddock, 2002). Finally, accountability is another core idea central to the concepts discussed above. The idea of accountability points to the responsibility component found in each of the competing concepts discussed above. Sandra Waddock maintains that accountability means that "companies need to assume responsibility for the impacts of their practices, policies and processes and the decisions that stand behind those practices" (Waddock, 2002). Accountability might be seen as the principles component of the V B A framework. Though the competing and complementary frameworks discussed in this section likely have other characteristics in common, at least the core ideas of value, balance, and accountability may be seen as tying together the frameworks in a simpUfied and coherent manner (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012, p. 172; Schwartz & Carroll, 2008). In summary, the concepts discussed in the context of CSR along with competing and complementary conceptions are significantly overlapping and are more similar than different in the processes and outcomes they address.

Newer Research Avenues In their theory review article on CSR, Aguinis and Glavas noted that interest in C S R was accelerating rapidly in part, because as organizations become increasingly involved in CSR, scholars have more opportunities to engage in C S R research — at multi-levels, over different points in time, and with more intricate and novel methodological approaches (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Some newer research streams that fall within this scope and offer opportunities to advance C S R research include: (1) PCSR, (2) the business case for CSR, (3) upstream/ downstream CSR, (4) C S R in emerging economies, (5) corporate activism and CSR, and (6) CSiR. While these are by no means the totahty of new research avenues, they are highlighted for their increasing

56


popularity in C S R investigations and their potential for theory development and/or practical application. Political CSR Research on C S R continues to evolve as broader audiences of scholars find opportunities to explore the business-and-society relationship. One evolving theoretical concept is that of PCSR, which has received great attention with the explosion of global business. Originally introduced by researchers Matten and Crane under the corporate citizenship framework, and then further developed by Scherer and Palazzo, P C S R focuses on the political role of business, given the sociopolitical and institutional infrastructures of various countries and the "regulatory vacuum" in global governance (see, for example, Palazzo & Scherer, 2008; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007; Scherer, Palazzo, & Matten, 2014). Studies in this realm approach C S R from many different philosophical perspectives but with the central theme that corporations are political actors that can and should assume social and political responsibilities beyond their legal responsibilities under democratic governance. This politicized concept of C S R has been somewhat controversial, spurring debates about its normative versus instrumental epistemology, its resemblance to concepts of corporate citizenship, and its implications for business. However, recent investigations into the types of activities that constitute PCSR, the microfoundations surrounding PCSR, and the outcomes of P C S R show that the concept of PCSR is gaining momentum. In particular, new multilevel work that discusses responsible leadership styles in different sociopolitical institutional contexts sets the stage for practical applications of this theory (Maak, Pless, & Voegtlin, 2016). Nevertheless, there is much work to be done in teasing out the dynamics of the political role of business. As pointed out by researchers Hussain and Moriarty, the PCSR model has a potential flaw in the assumption that corporations can operate as supervising authorities that hold others accountable (Hussain & Moriarty, 2016). They advocate for removing business corporations from any policymaking role in PCSR. Their position may be supported by studies that show how companies may use C S R to produce policy outcomes that work against public welfare.'

'See, for example, the political activities of the British-American Tobacco addressed in Fooks, Gilmore, Collin, Holden, and Lee (2013).

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 57 Yet, other studies bring to the surface the poUtical synergies between C S R and poHtical activity that can help companies respond to stakeholders' concerns and broader societal issues (Hond, Rehbein, Bakker, & Lankveld, 2014). In sum, the concept of PCSR offers opportunity for both theoretical development and continued debate as C S R researchers attempt to answer the question: to what extent can/should business be politically involved in filling the institutional voids present in the global business environment?

The CSP-CFP

Relationship and the Business Case for CSR

While the CSP and C F P relationship has been seemingly explored ad nausea, recent research has highlighted newer foci from both theoretical and methodological perspectives. First, the C S P - C F P relationship is often the launching point for discussions of the business-case for C S R practices, grounded in the idea that C S R activities will be rewarded by the market in economic and financial terms (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). That is, C S R should produce documentable benefits to the businesses' financial bottom line. Yet the business case continues to be debated, with evidence that there are many more influences on executives* decisions to launch C S R activities. For example, one recent study suggests that executives' belief in the business case for C S R stems from the tendency to justify and idealize a market economy system (Hafenbriidl & Waeger, 2017). Additionally, the authors find that even though managers espousing this fair market ideology believe in the business case for CSR, they are not more inclined to engage in C S R than managers who do not hold this ideology, because they experience weaker emotional reactions when confronted with ethical problems. Thus, it seems that the way managers view C S R relative to market influences will affect the way they implement C S R practices and handle ethical problems. Second, the ability of firms to profit from C S R continues to be debated, with researchers beginning to identify broader influences, and particularly constraints, on the C S P - C F P relationship. Researcher Barnett, for example, points out that there is an "indirect path forward" in assessing the business case for CSR, because the business case literature has established only that firms usually benefit from responding to the demands of their primary stakeholders (Barnett, 2016). He notes that most companies co-mingle social and corporate benefits in their reporting, so that trust from broader stakeholders (beyond shareholders

58


and primary stakeholders) suffers, and C S R initiatives appear selfserving rather than other-serving. Barnett suggests that rather than continuing to test the C S P - C F P relationship by establishing only a business case for taking actions that are necessary to remain in business (which he proposes is tautological), researchers should be looking at validating a business case for society. This would require expanding on the "non-instrumental, social welfare aspects of stakeholder theory" that have "fallen away" with an emphasis on the instrumental aspects of stakeholder theory. In short, Barnett suggests that a social welfare perspective might be paired with stakeholder theory to help make a business case for society as a whole. Third, researchers continue to explore additional mediators and moderators in the C S P - C F P relationship that can offer insight into the business case. Recently, researchers Zhao and Murrell replicated the original Waddock and Graves (1997) study on the C S P - C F P relationship in a larger sample and over a longer period (Zhao & Murrell, 2016). In contrast to the original study that argued that better CSP improves subsequent C F P , Zhao and Murrell found that while prior C F P was positively related to subsequent CSP, prior CSP was not associated with subsequent C F P . They suggest that there might be mediating effects of stakeholder responses between CSP and C F P , as well as differences in the magnitude of stakeholder responses. Reputation, in particular, is an important construct that can influence stakeholder perceptions of a firm's social performance, and there are opportunities for both theory development and methodological forays in examining how it affects the C S P - C F P relationship. Researchers have explored it as both a mediator and a moderator in the C S P - C F P link, in conjunction with other constructs, like public trust (see, for example, Gardberg, Symeou, & Zyglidopoulos, 2015, January; Tetrault Sirsly & Lvina, 2016). When reputation is viewed as an intangible, strategic asset that can be a source of competitive advantage, it is easy to see how corporations might manage their reputation to promote the C S P - C F P Hnk. However, how they do this (i.e., via the media, or through voluntary or mandatory practices), the various approaches they use (i.e., is it just one risk management tool in a larger reputation toolbox?), and the resources they might need to do it (i.e., do larger firms have an advantage?) remains unclear. Finally, measures and methodologies continue to be more refined in exploring the C S P - C F P relationship. Researchers Shahzad and Sharfman most recently identified the potential for sample selection bias and therefore limited generalizability in studies whose CSP activities are


59

rated by social-choice investment advisory (SIA) firms like Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini & Co ( K L D ) , or Thomson Renter (ASSET4) (Shahzad & Sharfman, 2017). Yet, these are the most widely used metrics, and there has been much research on the reliability and validity of these measures of CSP. Beyond secondary data, rich qualitative studies offer the opportunity for researchers to provide more insight into how C S R might work in smaller enterprises and in emerging economies — interesting contexts to try to understand the antecedents to C S R practices under conditions of Umited resources. Unfortunately, a recent study identifies that despite the rise of qualitative C S R research, the qualitative approach to investigating C S R has been largely monomethodological, relying on interviews as the sole source of inquiry, with purely retrospective descriptions (usually from executives) that may not be rooted in actual practice (Bass & Milosevic, 2018). Ethnographic research, as well as newer "fuzzy-set" qualitative comparative analysis techniques, offer the opportunity for researchers to examine the complex interrelationships and different configurations of conditions that affect a company's CSP, even across different national contexts (see, for example, Skarmeas, Leonidou, & Saridakis, 2014). With newer measures and methodologies, it might be possible for researchers to distinguish C S R activities that represent "greenwashing" versus true C S R claims, in addition to linking CSP antecedents and outcomes to other firm activities. Upstream/Downstream CSR Under a framework of a social connection approach to CSR, researcher Schrempf identified the limitations of a "liability approach" to C S R versus a "social connection" approach to C S R (Schrempf, 2012; Schrempf-Stirling & Palazzo, 2016). A liability approach assigns responsibility for C S R under a compliance-oriented approach that focuses on a single problem (i.e. bad working conditions). A social connection approach is based on broader cosmopolitan thinking, social connection logic, and a shared responsibility focus that allows for judgment of existing standards and regulations. This theoretical distinction paves the way for additional studies that look at both the upstream and downstream ethical implications of corporate supply chains and the C S R demands that are posed on multinational corporations. As noted by Schrempf, "It (the social connection approach) demands that legal and moral gaps be filled in contrast to liability C S R where background

60


conditions are perceived as static" (Schrempf, 2012, p. 695). With a social connection approach to CSR, researchers have the opportunity to view C S R in multinational corporations more holistically. For example, recent qualitative research on working conditions in the Indian textile industry highlights how buyer-driven governance breaks down in the web of factors rooted in suppliers' traditions, beliefs, local demands, and resource dependency (Soundararajan & Brown, 2016). As another example, while there has been considerable attention to the harm done to consumers in the downstream C S R domain by marketing (i.e. false advertising and promises), recent research highlights the harm done by consumers, upstream, as an indirect effect of marketing activities concerning supply chains (i.e., when consumers buy lower cost, just-in-time products that are made under poor working conditions) (Smith, Palazzo, & Bhattacharya, 2010). In sum, broader theoretical frameworks that allow for taking a more systems approach to understanding C S R can help to unlock some of the mysteries surrounding the management of global supply chains, as well as other multistakeholder networks. CSR in Emerging Economies Perhaps a less well-understood area of C S R research is the role of CSR in emerging economies. Much of the research to date has explored the role of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in fostering C S R activities outside of their host country and in emerging economies in Brazil, China, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Russia, and India — to name a few. In their seminal article about putting the " S " back in C S R , Aguilera and colleagues note that because business organizations are embedded in different national systems, they experience different degrees of internal and external moral, relational, and instrumental pressures to engage in C S R initiatives (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007). Under their framework, there appears to be little pressure for businesses in emerging economics to engage in C S R for social change, unless strong "morally based" N G O pressures help to focus businesses on issues of government accountability, political stability, and reduced poverty in these economies. Some researchers have highlighted the strategic role that CSR can play, and the signaling effects of C S R activities, in helping M N E subsidiaries obtain legitimacy and overcome the liability of foreignness in foreign host countries (see, for example. Hah & Freeman, 2014; Husted, Montiel, & Christmann, 2016).

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 61 The strategic C S R framework proposed by Burke and Logsdon continues to serve as a useful tool to evaluate the motivations of MNEs in emerging economies (Burke & Logsdon, 1996). However, newer approaches that evaluate M N E practices from strategic, altruistic, and sustainable development orientations provide insight into the more nuanced stakeholder approaches taken by MNEs in emerging economies (Jin& Jamali, 2016). Corporate Activism and CSR Social movement organizations come in many different forms, but they are usually viewed as some form of collective enterprise that tries to establish a new way of doing things to implement a set of target goals (Blumer, 1995). Commonly referred to as "activists," those in pursuit of better C S R performance in firms are often special interest groups representing various stakeholders, like unions or other employee activist groups, environmental groups, community activists, religious groups, shareholder activists, and even NGOs. Concerns by activists over environmental and social sustainability practices are the fastest growing cause of today's shareholder proposals (Kaye, 2010). Therefore, it is no surprise that recent research cites how these proposals push companies to change their business practices (Grewal, Serafeim, & Yoon, 2016). However, how activists shape CSR, and the ways in which corporations respond to activism are rich areas for future research. To the first point, case study examples of campaigns against companies can provide evidence of how activists shape C S R . For example, in one study of Greenpeace's efforts to "detox" Zara of its use of hazardous chemicals in its supply chains, researchers applied the stakeholder characteristics of power, legitimacy, and urgency to show how Greenpeace, as an activist group, became salient to Zara and prompted change (Coombs & Holladay, 2015). Newer research suggests that the effectiveness of activism in influencing businesses to adopt new practices depends on the extent to which managers perceive activists' pressures as important (Waldron, Navis, & Fisher, 2013). Therefore, it seems that there is opportunity to assess the ways activist messages are communicated and translated to internal and external stakeholders. For example, an analysis of the Rainforest Action Network's efforts to alter sales of lumber from "old growth" forests shows how activists can shape C S R through collective narratives that highlight social injustice (Leitzinger, Navis, & Waldron, 2016, January). Social media has also been highlighted as a

62


way that activists' messages empower stakeholder groups, and particularly consumers, to C S R activism, with some success in changing a firm's C S R activities (Boyd, McGarry, & Clarke, 2016). On the negative side, corporate political activity, as a nonmarket strategy, has been seen to be used by firms to influence government regulations and "blunt the knife" of socially oriented investor activism (Hadani, Doh, & Schneider, 2016). In sum, there is much work to be done in investigating the wide variety of social activists and their various influences on different stakeholder groups that can provide insight into how firms decide to engage (or not to engage) in various C S R practices. The ways in which corporations respond to activism can provide insight into an organization's stakeholder culture, its concern with reputation, the importance it assigns to its relational and transactional relationships, its signaling activities, and its resource allocation strategies — among other characteristics. The hope is that firm responses to C S R activism are positive responses — for example, spurring innovative ways to adopt "green" technologies or increasing a firm's transparency regarding supply chain governance. However, as noted above, not all corporate responses to activism are positive. For example, in a study of Shell and BP corporations and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative ( E I T I ) , researchers found that while activist pressures prompted oil companies' involvement in multistakeholder initiatives and sponsorships, they also promoted covert responses in the form of monitoring their critics, including NGOs and other activist organizations (Uldam, Uldam, Hansen, & Hansen, 2017). This brings us to the next topic of CSiR. Corporate Social Irresponsibility Much of the C S R literature has focused on the antecedents and outcomes of a firm's C S R initiatives. Yet, with an ongoing tally of corporate scandals and C S R failures, it seems that there are opportunities to understand what motivates a company to be socially irresponsible and how CSiR might affect its various stakeholders. Defined broadly as organizational actions that cause harm to stakeholders, corporate social irresponsibility (CSI or CSiR) is a construct that is often used loosely in conjunction with articles on corruption, trust repair, and crisis management. For example, researchers have examined stakeholder reactions to corrupt practices, the moral salience of misconduct and the repair of firm—stakeholder relationships following a breach of trust, as well as

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 63 the role of social approval at the onset of a crisis (see Brown, Buchholtz, & Dunn, 2016; Bundy & Pfarrer, 2015; Bundy, Pfarrer, Short, & Coombs, 2017). Whether CSiR has emerged as its own distinct construct is still to be seen, as researchers suggest different definitions, characteristics, and measures. Some define CSiR activities as reactionary, exploitive, and grounded in unethical behaviors (with illegality at an extreme), in contrast to C S R activities that are proactive, nurturing, and ethical (Jones, Bowd, & Tench, 2009). Others define CSiR as a social harm that is determined to be the result of corporate irresponsibility based on an observers' assessment of the firm, its actions, and its affect on others (Lange & Washburn, 2012). Some researchers suggest that a firm's social irresponsibility is quickly forgotten by its stakeholders under various cognitive processes, as well as the manipulation of short-term conditions of the event and the silencing of vocal "rememberers" (see Mena, Rintamaki, Fleming, & Spicer, 2016; Barnett, 2014). It will be important for future research to continue to distinguish the construct of CSiR as separate from (and not just the opposite of) CSR, including its different influences, different stakeholder reactions, and different attributions.

Conclusion The topic and trajectory of CSiR continues to be significant as researchers and practitioners engage in C S R thinking and practice in an escalating fashion. There are no indicators that interest in C S R is waning. C S R is defined in a multitude of ways, some narrow, some broad, but this poses few difficulties because uniformity of definitional construct is less important than commitment and implementation. Researchers and practitioners alike employ complementary and competitive terminology to characterize and embrace the field, but most of these frameworks have more in common than not. Among the most important of these nomenclatures include business ethics, stakeholder management, sustainability, corporate citizenship, conscious capitalism, creating shared value, and purpose-driven organizations. Each of these frameworks has nuances that make them identifiable from the others but most of them operate as though C S R were at their core. Other candidate terms are likely to appear on the scene in the years ahead. Several of the more recent research avenues related to C S R have been set forth and discussed. Among the most representative include the emerging concept of PCSR, the relationship between corporate social

64


responsibility/performance and C F P , upstream and downstream C S R , C S R in emerging economies, recent corporate activism on C S R topics, and CSiR. These topics represent just a few of the major research themes characterizing C S R , but importantly, they are attempts to understand some of the nuances in the business-society relationship under novel and/or integrative frameworks. Despite several decades of investigation into the concepts of CSR, there is still much work to be done in teasing out exactly what it means to be "good" in business. As the recent Aflac survey on C S R cited at the beginning of the chapter suggested, expectations of good business behavior have become so strong that most consumers are prepared to penalize firms that do not engage in responsible business practices. With this kind of support, the CSR future is bright. C S R will continue on its upward path and systematically become more institutionalized into organizational practice. As one observes what is taking place around the world, especially in developing economies, the continued growth and acceptance of C S R is a predicted outcome.

References Ackerman, R. W., & Bauer, R. A. (1976). Corporate social responsiveness. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E . , Williams, C , & Ganapathi, J . (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836—863. Aguinis, H.. & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968. Altman, B. W. (1998). Corporate community relations in the 1990s: A study in transformation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University. Barnett, M. L . (2014). Finding a why stakeholders ignore firm misconduct: A cognitive view. Journal of Management, 40, 676—702. Barnett, M. L . (2016). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A critique and an indirect path forward. Business & Society. doi:0007650316660044 Bass, A. E., & Milosevic, I . (2018). The ethnographic method in C S R research: The role and importance of methodological fit. Business & Society, 57(1), 174—215. Blumer, H. (1995). Social movements. In H. Blumer (Ed.), Social movements (pp. 60-83). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bowen, H . R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, N Y : Harper & Row.

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 65 Boyd, D. E . , McGarry, B. M., & Clarke, T. B. (2016). Exploring the empowering and paradoxical relationship between social media and C S R activism. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2739-2746. Brown, J . A., Buchholtz, A. K., & Dunn, P. (2016). Moral salience and the role of goodwill in firm-stakeholder trust repair. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26, 181 — 199. Bundy, J . , & Pfarrer, M. D. (2015). A burden of responsibility; The role of social approval at the onset of a crisis. Academy of Management Review, 40, 345—369. Bundy, J . , Pfarrer, M. D., Short, C . E . , & Coombs, W. T. (2017). Crises and crisis management; Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1661-1692. Burke, L . , & Logsdon, J . M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 495-502. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review-, 4(4), 498—505. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility; Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons. 34(4), 39-48. Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, lOOUOJ, 1-7. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility; Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38, 268-295. Carroll, A. B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility; Concepts and practices. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J . Moon. & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 19—46). Oxford; Oxford University Press. Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility; The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamics, 44, 87—96. Carroll, A. B., Brown, J. A., & Buchholtz, A. K . (2018). Business and society: Ethics, sustainability and stakeholder managemeni (10th ed., pp. 80—90). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Carroll, A. B., Lipartito, K . , Post, J. E . , Werhane. P. H . , & Goodpaster, K. E . (executive editor) (2012). Corporate responsibility: The American experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K.. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility; A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Managemeni Reviews, 12(\), 85—105. Carroll, A. B., Sullivan, S. C , & Markowitz, L . (1995). Understanding the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the marketplace: A Reputation and Social Performance Assessment Study. International Association for Business and Society Proceedings, Vienna, Austria, 330-334. Clarkson, M. B. E . (Ed.). Report of the definitions working group. (1994). Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory. Centre for Corporate Social Performance & Ethics, Faculty of Management, University of Toronto. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J . (2015). How activists shape CSR: Insights from Internet contagion and contingency theories. In A. Adi, G . Grigore, &

66


D. Crowther (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility in the digital age (Vol. 7, pp. 85-97). Developments in corporate governance and responsibility. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Conscious Capitalism Credo. Conscious Capitalism (2017). Retrieved from https:// www.consciouscapitalism.org/about/credo. Accessed on March 25, 2017. Crane, A.. Palazzo, G . , Spence, L . J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of "creating shared value". California Management Review. 56(2), 130-153. Dahlsrud. A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review. 11(3), 70—76. Davis, K . (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibility. Academy of Managemeni Journal, 16, 2. de los Teyes, G . , Scholz, R., & Smith, N. C . (2017). Beyond the 'win-win': Creating shared value requires ethical frameworks. California Management Review, 59(2). DeGeorge, R. T. (1987). The status of business ethics: Past and future. Journal of Business Ethics. 6, 201 - 211. Fombrum. C . J. (1998). Three pillars of corporate citizenship. In N. Tichy, A. McGill. & L . St. Clair (Eds.). Corporate global citizenship (pp. 27-61). San Francisco, C A : New Lexington Press. Fooks, G . , Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C . & Lee, K . (2013). The limits of corporate social responsibility: Techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political C S R . Journal of Business Ethics. 112(2), 283-299. Frederick, W. C . (1978). From CSRi to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Working Paper No. 279. University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Business. Frederick, W. C . (2006). Corporation be good! The story of corporate social responsibility. Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing. Freeman, R. E . (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishers, Inc. Friedman. M. (1962). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times, September, p. 126. Gardberg, N. A., Symeou, P. C , & Zyglidopoulos, S. C . (2015, January). Public trust's duality in the CSP-reputation-financial performance relationship across countries. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(\), 15705. Academy of Management. Grewal, J . , Serafeim, G . , & Yoon. A. S. (2016). Shareholder Activism on Sustainability Issues. SSRN, July 16. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract= 2805512 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2805512 Hadani, M., Doh, J. P., & Schneider, M. A. (2016). Corporate political activity and regulatory capture how some companies blunt the knife of socially oriented investor activism. Journal of Management. doi:0149206316638162 Hafenbriidl, S., & Waeger, D. (2017). Ideology and the micro-foundations of CSR: Why executives believe in the business case for C S R and how this affects their C S R engagements. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1582-1606.

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 67 Hah, K . , & Freeman, S. (2014). Muhinationa! enterprise subsidiaries and their CSR: A conceptual framework of the management of C S R in smaller emerging economies. Journal of Business Ethics, I22(\), 125—136. Hakimi, S. (2015). Why purpose-driven companies are often more successful. Fast Company, July 21. Retrieved from https;//w\vw.fastcompany.com/3048197/whypurpose-driven-companies-are-often-more-successful. Accessed on March 25, 2017. Hond, F . , Rehbein, K. A., Bakker, F . G . , & Lankveld, H. K. V. (2014). Playing on two chessboards: Reputation effects between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA). Journal of Management Studies, 5/(5), 790-813. Hower, M. (2016). The rise of the purpose-driven business. Greenhiz, January 28. Retrieved from https://www.greenbiz.com/article/rise-purpose-driven-business. Accessed on March 25, 2017. Hussain, W., & Moriarty, J . (2016). Accountable to whom? Rethinking the role of corporations in political C S R . Journal of Business Ethics, February 10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s 10551 -016-3027-8 Husted, B. W.. Montiel, L , & Christmann, P. (2016). Effects of local legitimacy on certification decisions to global and national C S R standards by multinational subsidiaries and domestic firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 47{2), 382-397. Jin, J., & Jamali, D. (2016). Strategic corporate social responsibility of multinational companies subsidiaries in emerging markets: Evidence from China. Long Range Planning, 49(5), 541-558. Jones, B., Bowd, R., & Tench, R. (2009). Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: Competing realities. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(3), 300-310. Joyner, B. E . , & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 304. Kaye, L . (2010). Shareholder activism on sustainability issues is surging. TriplePundit, July 15. Retrieved from http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/07/ shareholder-activism-sustainability-issues-surging/. Accessed on May 5, 2017. Kramer, M. (2011). C S R vs CSV: What's the difference? FSG: Reimaging Social Change, February 18. Retrieved from http://www.fsg.org/blog/csr-vs-csv-what% E2%80%99s-difference. Accessed on March 25, 2017. Lange, D., & N. Washburn (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300-326. Leitzinger, J. M., Navis, C , & Waldron, T . L . (2016, January). Movements, markets, & the power of living stories. Academy of Management Proceedings, 20I6(\), 13377. Academy of Management. Levitt, T . (1958). The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, September-October 1958. Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Voegtlin, C . (2016). Business statesman or shareholder advocate? C E O responsible leadership styles and the microfoundations of political C S R . Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 463-493.

68


Mackay, J . , & Sisodia, R. (2013). Conscious Capitalism is not an oxymoron. Harvard Business Review, January 14. Retrieved from littps://hbr.org/2013/01/ cultivating-a-higher-conscious. Accessed on March 25. 2017. Matten. D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33{2), 404-424. Mena, S., Rintamaki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016). On the forgetting of corporate irresponsibility. Academy of Managemeni Review. 41{4), 720-738. Moon, J . (2014). Corporate social responsibility: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palazzo. G . , & Scherer, A. G . (2008). Corporate social responsibility, democracy, and the politicization of the corporation. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 773-775. PR Newswire. (2016, December 15). Aflac survey adds new reasons to focus on corporate social responsibility. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/aftac-survey-adds-new-reasons-to-focus-on-corporate-social-responsibility-300378970.html. Accessed on February 8, 2017. Scherer, A. G . . & Palazzo, G . (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and Society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(\), 1096-1120. Scherer, A. G . , & Palazzo, G . (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Scherer, A. G . , Palazzo, G . . & Matten, D. (2014). The business firm as a political actor: A new theory of the firm for a globalized world. Business & Society, 53{2), 143-156. Schrempf. J. (2012). The delimitation of corporate social responsibility: Upstream, downstream and historic C S R . Business & Society, 5/(4), 690-707. Schrempf-Stirling, J., & Palazzo, G . (2016). Upstream corporate social responsibility: The evolution from contract responsibility to full producer responsibility. Business & Society, 55(4), 491-527. Schwartz, M. S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: An ethical approach (pp. 121-154). Peterborough: Broadview Press. Schwartz. M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business & Society. 47, 148-186. Shahzad, A. M., & Sharfman, M. P. (2017). Corporate social performance and financial performance sample-selection issues. Business & Society, 56(6), 889-918. Skarmeas, D., Leonidou. C . N., & Saridakis, C . (2014). Examining the role of C S R skepticism using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1796-1805. Smith, N. C , Palazzo. G . , & Bhattacharya, C . B. (2010). Marketing's consequences: Stakeholder marketing and supply chain corporate social responsibility issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4). 6\l-64\.

Corporate Social Responsibility Review 69 Soundararajan, V., & Brown, J . A. (2016). Voluntary governance mechanisms in . global supply chains: Beyond C S R to a stakeholder utiUty perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, I34(\), 83-102. Tench, R., Sun, W., & Jones, B. (Eds.). (2012). Corporate social irresponsibility: A challenging concept (pp. 9). Bingley: Emerald Books. Tetrault Sirsly, C . A., & Lvina, E . (2016). From doing good to looking even better: The dynamics of C S R and reputation. Business & Society. doi:10.ll77/ 0007650315627996. The Guardian. (2014). India's new C S R law sparks debate among NGOs and business. The Guardian, August 11. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/ sustainable-business/india-csr-law-debate-business-ngo. Accessed on March 3, 2017. Triple Bottom Line. (2009). The Economist, November 17. Uldam, J., Uldam, J., Hansen, H. K., & Hansen, H. K. (2017). Corporate responses to stakeholder activism: Partnerships and surveillance. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 13(2), 151-165. Waddock, S. (2002). Leading corporate citizens, (pp. 219). Boston, MA: McGrawHill. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319. Waldron, T. L . , Navis, C , & Fisher, G . (2013). Explaining differences in firms' responses to activism. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 397—417. Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L . (1985), The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 765—766. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16. 691—718. Wood, D. J., Logsdon, J . M., Lewellyn, P. G . , & Davenport, K . (2006). Global business citizenship: A transformative framework for ethics and sustainable capitalism (pp. 40). Armonk, N Y : M. E . Sharpe. Zadek, S. (2001). The civil corporation: The new economy of corporate citizenship. London: Earthscan. Zhao, X . , & Murrell, A. J. (2016). Revisiting the corporate social performancefinancial performance link: A replication of Waddock and Graves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(\, 2378-2388.