Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Social Responsibility Boundaries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Entrepreneurship, Finance, Governance and Ethics

Part of the book series: Advances in Business Ethics Research ((ABER,volume 3))

  • 2432 Accesses

Abstract

Companies face a dilemma between what society as a whole demands and the necessity of being economically efficient and creating value for all stakeholders. Why do only some companies claim they act in a socially responsible way? Because of international competition, policy makers do not act to improve environmental, social and societal issues until it becomes socially necessary, and companies act in a socially responsible way when social necessity is combined with a globally low reputation. This Chapter provides a theoretical insight into reflection on the roles of companies within a society. It addresses the legitimacy of companies in creating a green world under the constraint of maintaining democratic structures. To be legitimate in social actions they undertake privately, companies should go through a corporate politicization process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The social, societal and environmental aspects of Social Responsibility will be grouped in this Chapter under the ‘social’, except when it is stated otherwise.

  2. 2.

    Whereas ‘legitimacy’ is part of major organization theories such as institutional theory (Meyer and Rowan 1977), resource dependence theory (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), and organizational ecology (Carroll and Hannan 1989), ‘reputation’ plays a role in status theory (Shrum and Wuthnow 1988), in resource-based view (Hall 1992), and in game theory (Weigelt and Camerer 1988).

References

  • Alami, M. 2004. Genetically modified foods: how should the public have a say in influencing policy? Working Paper, Manchester Metropolitan University – School of Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B.E., and B.W. Gibbs. 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science 1: 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avi-Yonah, R.S. 2005. The cyclical transformations of the corporate form: A historical perspective on corporate social responsibility. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 30(3): 767–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backman, J. 1975. Social responsibility and accountability. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M.L., J.M. Jermier, and B.A. Lafferty. 2006. Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation Review 9(1): 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berle, A., and G.C. Means. 1932. The modern corporation and private property. New York: Commerce Clearing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., and E. Chiapello. 1998/2007. Le nouvel esprit du capitalism - The new spirit of capitalism. Trans. G. Elliott. France: Gallimard, nrf-essais. UK: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., and A. Millington. 2006. Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review 15: 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., and R. Slack. 2006. Public visibility as a determinant of the rate of corporate charitable donations. Business Ethics: A European Review 15: 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A.B.. 1979. A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4): 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A.B.. 1999. Corporate social responsibility. Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society 38: 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G.R., and M.T. Hannan. 1989. Density dependence in the evolution of populations of newspaper organizations. American Sociological Review 54: 524–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee for Economic Development (CED). 1971. Social responsibilities of business corporations. New York: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G.F., M.V.N. Whitman, and M.N. Zald. 2006. The responsibility paradox: Multinational firms and global corporate social responsibility. Working Paper Series n 1031, Ross School of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D.L., and S.M. Carter. 2005. An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies 42: 329–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimaggio, P., and W.W. Powell. 1983. The iron-cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, E.M. 2007. The good company: Retoric or reality? Corporate social responsibility and business ethics redux. American Business Law Journal 44: 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, W.C. 1960. The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review 2: 54–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, D. 2002. How green is BP? New York Times Magazine: section 6, 99, December 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutman, A., and F. Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 2001. The postnational constellation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. 1992. The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal 13: 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill, T.A. 2005. Rejuvenating Wal-Mart’s reputation. Business Horizons 48(1): 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P.P.M.A. 2002. Strategic issues management. Business & Society 41(4): 456–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P., and N. Dentchev. 2007. Taming Trojan horses: Identifying and mitigating corporate social responsibility risks. Journal of Business Ethics 75: 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A.J. 2005. Climate change strategy: The business logic behind voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. California Management Review 47: 21–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C. 2002. Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12: 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H.L. 1971. Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R.A., N. Gunningham, and D. Thornton. 2003. Explaining corporate environmental performance: How does regulation matter? Law & Society Review 37: 51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, R. 2005. Conflict and legitimacy in modern democratic societies. Javnost – The Public 12: 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, A., and J. Cullis. 1990. Ethical investments: Preferences and morality. Journal of Behavioral Economics 19: 395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch-Fannon, I. 2007. Corporate social responsibility movement and law’s empire: Is there a conflict? Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 58(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C., and A. Lewis. 1999. Morals and markets: The case of ethical investing. Business Ethics Quarterly 9: 439–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J.W. 1963. Business and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millon, D. 1990. Theories of the corporation. Duke Law Journal 2: 201–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millon, D. 2002. Why is corporate management obsessed with quarterly earnings and what should be done about it? George Washington Law Review 70: 890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monshipouri, M., C.E.J. Welch, and E.T. Kennedy. 2003. Multinational corporations and the ethics of global responsibility: Problems and possibilities. Human Rights Quarterly 25: 965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overdevest, C. 2004. Codes of conduct and standard setting in the forest sector: Constructing markets for democracy. Industrial Relations 59: 172–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., and G.R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E., and C. van der Linde. 1999. Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Journal of Business Administration & Policy Analysis 27–29: 215–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L.E., and J.E. Post. 1975. Measuring corporate responsibility. Journal of General Management 2: 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A.G., and G. Palazzo. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility – Business and society seen from an Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review 32: 1096–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, W., and R. Wuthnow. 1988. Reputational status of organizations in technical systems. American Journal of Sociology 93: 882–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tkac, P. 2006. One proxy at a time: Pursuing social change through shareholder proposals. Economic Review 91: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. 2005. The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S.A. 2002. Leading corporate citizens: Vision, values, value added. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt, K., and C. Camerer. 1988. Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and applications. Strategic Management Journal 9: 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, J.B. 1999. From expectation to experience: Essays on Law and legal education. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, Mv.N. 2003. American capitalism and global convergence. Washington, DC: Group of Thirty.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCLA Anderson School of Management and School of Law, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Celine Gainet

Authors
  1. Celine Gainet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Business, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston Road, Birmingham, B15 2TY, United Kingdom

    Robert Cressy

  2. , Schulich School of Business, York University, Keele Street 4700, Toronto, M3J 1P3, Ontario, Canada

    Douglas Cumming

  3. , Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom

    Chris Mallin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science + Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gainet, C. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility Boundaries. In: Cressy, R., Cumming, D., Mallin, C. (eds) Entrepreneurship, Finance, Governance and Ethics. Advances in Business Ethics Research, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3867-6_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation