Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Goals of Sustainable Development pp 55–76Cite as

CSR, Stakeholders and Complexity: Seeking Certainty in Decision-Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2225 Accesses

Abstract

CSR is by its very nature evolving, contextual and pragmatic, stakeholder representation being a key feature of its integrative nature. Although it has been suggested that there is a common body of stakeholders accepted as intrinsic to processes of accountability and transparency, it is suggested here that an emerging stakeholder is worth consideration. This stakeholder is the producer, perpetrator and manager of big data. This stakeholder is worthy of attention in that in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment big data can play a significant role in legitimating top-down and arbitrary power through control of knowledge creation and the dominant discourse whilst decreasing the transparency required in multi-stakeholder agendas as the basis of trust. A major reason cited for this tendency is recent commentary and critique concerning how big data replaces the ‘why’ in its analytical approach with the ‘how’ and the ‘what’. The tension highlighted in the use of this data in strategic planning is considered through the lenses of power, control, particularism, universalism and performativity. Examples are drawn from sustainability literature concerning resource depletion, environmental sustainability and sustainable organisational culture to illustrate the critical issues that can be affected by such an approach in the broader context of CSR and sustainability strategy. The intention is not to ignore the potential of big data to aid stakeholder insights into innovative approaches and solutions. Rather, it is to ensure that the ‘why’ is transparent to demonstrate the contextual relevance of patterning and findings represented as the ‘how’ and the ‘what’ of data. This might help ensure that the use of big data does not aid contemporary and inappropriate forms of particularism within and between organisations and institutions, thus stifling broad stakeholder contributions to the identification and solution generation of challenges affecting their stakes in context.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alvesson, M. (2011). De-essentializing the knowledge intensive firm: Reflections on sceptical research going against the mainstream. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1640–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). Good visions, bad micro-management and ugly ambiguity: Contradictions of (non) leadership in knowledge-intensive organization. Organization Studies, 24(6), 961–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2007). Sustainable corporate social responsibility and the value chain. In D. Crowther & M. M. Zain (Eds.), New perspectives on corporate social responsibility (pp. 109–128). UiTM: Kuala Lumpur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benn, S., & Bolton, D. (2011). Key concepts in corporate social responsibility. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57, 311–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, D., & Landells, T. (2015). Reconceptualizing power relations as sustainable business practice. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 604–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, D., & Landells, T. (2017). Decision-making as sustainable leadership: The garbage can revisited. In G. Eweje & R. J. Bathurst (Eds.), CSR, sustainability, and leadership. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, A., Mills, G., & MacGill, I. (2016). What role for the states on climate and energy policy? NSW enters the fray. The Conversation, December 24. Retrieved December 24, 2016, from https://theconversation.com/what-role-for-the-states-on-climate-and-energy-policy-nsw-enters-the-fray-69039

  • Carter, C., Clegg, S., & Wåhlin, N. (2011). When science meets strategic realpolitik: The case of the Copenhagen UN climate change summit. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 682–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2012). ‘A Garbage Can Model’ at forty: A solution that still attracts problems. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 36, 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowther, D., & Seifi, S. (2016). Introduction: The unknown stakeholder. In D. Crowther & S. Seifi (Eds.), Developments in corporate governance and responsibility, Volume 10, Corporate responsibility and stakeholding (pp. ix–xxiv). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Climate Council. (2016a). Talk vs. Action: What does a Trump Presidency mean for Climate Change? https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/talk-vs-action-what-a-trump-presidency-means-for-the-climate. Accessed on December 26, 2016.

  • Climate Council. (2016b). WATCH: Best of 2016. https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/best-of-2016-video. Accessed on December 26, 2016.

  • Doh, J. P., & Quigley, N. R. (2014). Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organisational outcomes. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, K. (1996). A nominal definition of complex adaptive systems. The Chaos Network, 8(1), 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U. (2014). Within, across and beyond—reconsidering the role of the social sciences and humanities in Europe. In K. Mayer, T. Konig & H. Nowotny (Eds.), Horizons for the social sciences and humanities. Conference Report. SSH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1976). Le Discours Ne Doit Pas Etre Pris Comme. In D. Defort & F. Ewald (Eds.), Dits et Ecrits, 3. Paris: Gaillmard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (2013). Biological relatives: IVF, stem cells, and the future of kinship. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council). (2013). Business Model. http://www.theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Business_Model.pdf. Accessed on December 26, 2016.

  • Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepore, J. (2014). The Disruption Machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong. The New Yorker, 23 June. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine. Accessed on August 5, 2016.

  • Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. D. (1999). Performativity: Lyotard and Foucault through Searle and Austin. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 18, 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy (rough draft). Middlesex: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organization Environment, 21, 245–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. (2016). The cunning of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberoi, R. (2016). Conceptualization of social entrepreneurship: Narratives in avant garde social entrepreneurs from India. In D. Crowther & S. Seifi (Eds.), Developments in corporate governance and responsibility, Volume 10, corporate responsibility and stakeholding (pp. 199–223). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E. E., & Eoyang, G. H. (2001). Facilitating Organizational change: Lessons from complexity science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overview. (2010). http://www.wbcsd.org/vision2050.aspx. Accessed on August 8, 2016.

  • Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow, P. (1984). The Foucault reader, London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1965). What is a speech act? In M. Black (Ed.), Philosophy in America. London: George Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifi, S., & Crowther, D. (2016). Managing with depleted resources. In D. Crowther & S. Seifi (Eds.), Developments in corporate governance and responsibility, Volume 10, corporate responsibility and stakeholding (pp. ix - xxiv). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (2011). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations (6th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyaert, C., & Hjorth, D. (Eds.). (2006). Entrepreneurship as social change—A third movement in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968). Control in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., & Balven, R. M. (2014). Responsible leadership: Theoretical issues and research directions. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 534–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western, S. (2008). Leadership: A critical text. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Willer, D., Lovaglia, M. J., & Markovsky, B. (1997). Power and influence: A theoretical bridge. Social Forces, 76(2), 571–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

    Dianne Bolton

Authors
  1. Dianne Bolton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dianne Bolton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leicester Business School , De Montford University Faculty of Business & Law, Leicester, United Kingdom

    David Crowther

  2. University of Derby , Derby, United Kingdom

    Shahla Seifi

  3. Federation University , Ballarat, Victoria, Australia

    Abdul Moyeen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bolton, D. (2018). CSR, Stakeholders and Complexity: Seeking Certainty in Decision-Making. In: Crowther, D., Seifi, S., Moyeen, A. (eds) The Goals of Sustainable Development . Approaches to Global Sustainability, Markets, and Governance. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5047-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation