Advertisement

Coherent CSR

  • Ivan HilliardEmail author
Chapter
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

This final chapter begins by assessing the growth of CSR in the past twenty years and trying to understand why it has been so ineffective in terms of the objectives it set itself. One of the arguments presented is the need (currently lacking) for the field of CSR to acknowledge its limited strategic impact to date. A second argument presented deals with organizational bias, whereby decision-making becomes locked-into certain parameters and results are valued above processes. It finishes by outlining a series of pitfalls to avoid for any organization serious about adapting a coherent approach to social responsibility.

Keywords

Decision-making bias Results bias Coherency pitfalls 

References

  1. Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper. Google Scholar
  3. Cassidy, D. (2003). Maximizing shareholder value: The risks to employees, customers and the community. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 3(2), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3), 351–366.Google Scholar
  5. Coffey, B. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1991). Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(6), 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dobers, P., & Springett, D. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: Discourse, narratives and communication. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(2), 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 1(1), 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Draper, S. (2006). Key models for delivering sector-level corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6(4), 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drucker, P. F. (1998). Management’s new paradigms. Forbes Magazine, 10(2), 98–99.Google Scholar
  10. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for corporate social responsibility. COM 2011/681. Brussels, European Commisson. Google Scholar
  13. Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review, 2(4), 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gong, Y., & Ho, K. C. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility matter for corporate stability? Evidence from China. Quality & Quantity, 52, 2291–2319. Google Scholar
  16. Halal, W. E. et al. (2001). The collaborative enterprise: A stakeholder model uniting profitability and responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship.Google Scholar
  17. KPMG International. (2017). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2017. Retrieved from www.kpmg.com/crreporting.
  18. Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1(5), 431–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
  20. McCann, L., Solomon, A., & Solomon, J. F. (2003). Explaining the growth in UK socially responsible investment. Journal of General Management, 28(4), 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR: Transactional, relational, and developmental approaches. California Management Review, 54(4), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32(1), 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 797–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pitelis, C. N. (2013). Towards a more ‘ethically correct’governance for economic sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 655–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Porter, T. B. (2008). Managerial applications of corporate social responsibility and systems thinking for achieving sustainability outcomes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25(3), 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schueth, S. (2003). Socially responsible investing in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  30. Senge, P. M., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York, NY: Doubleday. Google Scholar
  31. Sibony, O., Lovallo, D., & Powell, T. C. (2017). Behavioral strategy and the strategic decision architecture of the firm. California Management Review, 59(3), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Statman, M., & Glushkov, D. (2009). The wages of social responsibility. Financial Analysts Journal, 65(4), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stone, C. D. (1972). Should trees have standing—Toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California Law Review, 45, 450.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper. Google Scholar
  35. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.Google Scholar
  36. Young, W., & Tilley, F. (2006). Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The shift toward effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(6), 402–415.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversidad Europea de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations