Bringing Back the Essence of the “S” and “R” to CSR: Understanding the Limitations of the Merchant Trade and the White Man’s Burden

One of the fundamental struggles in corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the uncertainty and inherent contradictions that stem from a company being an individual legal entity and a community of persons. The authors contend that CSR has departed from the essence of “social responsibility.” The paper is a commentary on CSR, presented as two frameworks rooted in individualism—The Merchant Trade (the strategic view of CSR) and The White Man’s Burden (self-righteous CSR heroism that assumes the shackles of responsibility normally offered by others). Both, however, contradict the essence of “social responsibility” pitting individual against community, business against society, and economic needs and realities versus ethical reflection. The authors present a model that advocates a more moderate and realistic approach to CSR that goes back to the essence of social responsibility.     

In defense of social responsibility

Recent journalistic criticism of the concept of corporate social responsibility rests on the assertion that social responsibility adds nothing to corporate profits. Hence, inclusion of the motion in the business vocabulary amounts to nothing more than “double talk.”The author of an influential 1953 book on the topic took another look at social responsibility twenty-five years later and found “few gains in the quality of business stewardship over that time.” The idea “remains peripheral to the mainstream of economic thought.”Corporate social responsibility involves more than simply being a law-abiding corporate citizen. It reaches into these decision-making areas where perfectly legal choices may have harmful social consequences. As evidence of social harm amounts, society has to define and defend the ground on which it requires an appropriate response from the business corporation. Society will get the response it demands.     

Consumer Social Responsibility (CnSR): Toward a Multi-Level,Multi-Agent Conceptualization of the “Other CSR”

Despite considerable debate as to what corporate social responsibility (CSR) is, consumer social responsibility (CnSR), as an important force for CSR (Vogel in Calif Manag Rev 47(4):19–45, 2005), is a term that remains largely unexplored and under-theorized. To better conceive the role consumers play in activating CSR, this paper provides a multi-level, multi-agent conceptualization of CnSR. Integrating needs-based models of decision making with justice theory, the article interpretively develops the reasons (instrumental, relational, and moral) why variously positioned agents leverage consumers as a force for corporate social responsibility. The paper theoretically expands currently limited conceptions of CnSR by exploring the levels at which diverse agents engage with CnSR (Who and What?) and the needs driving these agents (Why?). The paper suggests that the so-called “consumer side of CSR” (Devinney et al. in Stanf Soc Innov Rev:29–37, 2006) is contingent upon the presence, absence, and varying intensities of underlying agent needs. Academic and managerial implications are drawn in the paper’s conclusion.     

Corporate Governance, Internal Decision Making, and the Invisible Hand

Proponents of the dominant contemporary model of corporate governance maintain that the shareholder is the primary constituent of the firm. The responsibility for managerial decision makers in this governance system is to maximize shareholder wealth. Neoclassical economists ethically justify this objective with their interpretation of Adam Smith's notion of the Invisible Hand. Using a famous quotation from The Wealth of Nations, they interpret the Invisible Hand as Smith's (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Methuen &; Co., London) assertion that market participants, in pursuing their own self-interests without regard to the interests of others, will collectively provide the optimal economic benefit to society. We argue that the traditional interpretation of Smith is too narrow and potentially harmful to society. In order to fully understand Smith's notion of the influence of the Invisible Hand on human behavior, one must also consider The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In that work, Smith (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, A. Millar, London) portrays the pursuit of self-interest as only one of several potential motivations for human action. He also acknowledged the existence of a “sympathy principle,” which refers to the ability and propensity of human beings to consider the interests of others. Heilbroner (The Essential Adam Smith, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 59) suggests that Smith's sympathy principle allows one to “determine the appropriate degree of self-interest, the proper display of benevolence, the desirable strictness of justice.” In fact, Smith indicates that (1) a society whose members pursue self-interest without a sense of justice will eventually collapse; (2) a society whose members pursue self-interest checked by their sense of justice alone will survive; (3) a society whose members pursue self-interest, justice, and the interests of others will flourish. Since a more complete reading of Smith indicates that human beings, in considering their own interests, also reflexively consider the interests of others when making decisions, then the traditional corporate governance model appears to be lacking. A broader, multiple stakeholder approach to corporate governance that considers the interests of other constituencies may be more consistent with Smith's views. In particular, Smith's sympathy principle provides a theoretical foundation for a shift away from the narrow, yet dominant, shareholder-based corporate governance model and toward multiple stakeholder models of corporate governance [e.g., Business and Society: A Strategic Approach to Corporate Citizenship, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA] and internal decision-making [e.g., Sloan Management Review 38, (1997) 25–37].     

The limits of corporate responsibility standards

I explore the limits of corporate responsibility standards – for example Social Accountability 8000 (SA 8000), the Global Reporting Initiative, the Fair Labor Association workplace code – by looking at these initiatives through Derrida's aporias of justice as set out in ‘Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority”’. Based on a discussion of SA 8000, I uncover the unavoidable aporias that are associated with the use of this standard. I contribute to the literature on corporate responsibility standards in general and SA 8000 in particular by showing (a) that attempts to standardise corporate responsibility can only be successful insofar as we recognise that compliance with SA 8000's rules requires a ‘fresh judgement’ every time they are applied, (b) that SA 8000 should not be pushed down the supply chain as such coercion does not require a truly responsible decision by suppliers and eventually leads to moral mediocrity and (c) that the necessarily time-consuming reflections about the singular contexts within which SA 8000 is applied challenge the urgent need for implementing this standard. I discuss the implications of my analysis of SA 8000 for corporate responsibility standards in general.     

The Changing Private Market System

Most marketing managers still function as if challenges such as scarcity of resources and “social responsibility” were simply temporary phenomena. But our “private” market system is evolving into a “public” system. Public policy and the goals of society play an expanding role in making strategy decisions.

Traditional efficiency is when a manager attempts to achieve the greatest output for a given combination of inputs. Under a contemporary definition of efficiency, each firm must produce and allocate goods and services in such a manner that the maximum possible societal utility is achieved. The marketing function is to be the “change agent.”

Marketing today is in a transition from a “passive” to an “active” phase of its ability to deal with the changes taking place. As traditionally, the marketing manager will make decisions within several areas: product offering, price, distribution and promotion efforts, including advertising and sales. The basic concept of the product will be changed to include not only physical goods, but also services, organizations, people, plans and ideas. Exchange will take place between two parties and will no longer be measured simply by a straightforward calculation of costs. Environmental quality, political considerations, consumer welfare, etc., must be evaluated along with profits in order to properly understand how well marketing is satisfying the needs of society.     

Economic and Social Upgrading in Global Value Chains and Industrial Clusters: Why Governance Matters

The burgeoning literature on global value chains (GVCs) has recast our understanding of how industrial clusters are shaped by their ties to the international economy, but within this context, the role played by corporate social responsibility (CSR) continues to evolve. New research in the past decade allows us to better understand how CSR is linked to industrial clusters and GVCs. With geographic production and trade patterns in many industries becoming concentrated in the global South, lead firms in GVCs have been under growing pressure to link economic and social upgrading in more integrated forms of CSR. This is leading to a confluence of “private governance” (corporate codes of conduct and monitoring), “social governance” (civil society pressure on business from labor organizations and non-governmental organizations), and “public governance” (government policies to support gains by labor groups and environmental activists). This new form of “synergistic governance” is illustrated with evidence from recent studies of GVCs and industrial clusters, as well as advances in theorizing about new patterns of governance in GVCs and clusters.     

Asking “What Else?” to identify unintended negative consequences

With the advent of big data, the Internet of Things, cognitive computing, and social media, it is becoming more difficult to argue that one could not have known or at least have considered more alternatives, particularly negative unintended consequences that happen in addition to the intended positive ones. Organizations too often make a decision that will produce a positive consequence and then focus on how to implement it, rarely stepping back to ask “What else could happen?” Any decision changes the system in which it exists. The longer the time required to implement a decision, the more systemic changes can alter the effects of the decision on the system. Decisions to implement Corporate Social Responsibility and sustainability initiatives usually involve many different stakeholders and may involve systems in which organizations have little expertise or experience. A major negative unintended consequence, even for a CSR initiative, can damage the stakeholders’ trust in the organization. This article proposes a 5-step process to answer the question “What else could happen?” in order to identify possible unintended negative consequences, thereby helping organizations support their commitment to people, planet, and profit.     

Survey of Teaching,Training, and Research in the field of Economic and Business Ethics in Latin America

Theories of business ethics or corporate responsibility tend to focus on justifying obligations that go above and beyond what is required by law. This article examines the curious fact that most business ethics scholars use concepts, principles, and normative methods for identifying and justifying these beyond-compliance obligations that are very different from the ones that are used to set the levels of regulations themselves. Its modest proposal—a plea for a research agenda, really—is that we could reduce this normative asymmetry by borrowing from the normative framework of “regulation” to identify and justify an important range of beyond-compliance obligations. In short, we might think of “self-regulation” as a language and a normative framework with some distinct advantages over other frameworks like stakeholder theory, corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, and the like. These other frameworks have been under attack in the business ethics literature of late, primarily for their vagueness and their disappointing inability to distinguish clearly between genuine beyond-compliance moral obligations, on the one hand, and charitable acts that are laudable but not morally obligatory, on the other.     

Complete and Partial Organizing for Corporate Social Responsibility

This paper investigates different modes of organizing for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on insights from organization theory, we theorize two ways to organize for CSR. “Complete” organization for CSR happens within businesses and depends on the availability of certain organizational elements (e.g., membership, hierarchy, rules, monitoring, and sanctioning). By contrast, “partial” organization for CSR happens when organizers do not have direct access to all these organizational elements. We discuss partial organization for CSR by analyzing how standards and cross-sector partnerships make selective use of organizational elements. We maintain that an important feature of the increasing institutionalization of CSR—not only within businesses but also among non-governmental, governmental, and professional actors—is the rise of partial forms of organization. We discuss the contributions to this Special Issue in the context of our theorization of complete/partial organization for CSR and outline avenues for further research.     

Environment,corporate entrepreneurship,and financial performance: A taxonomic approach

This study examined the association between a firm's external environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance. The study emphasized three propositions: (1) perceived—rather than objective-characteristics of the environment significantly influenced entrepreneurship activities; (2) a multidimensional definition of a firm's environment was essential to unravel the interplay between the environment, orporate entrepreneurship activities, and financial performance; and (3) a taxonomic approach had the advantage of accounting for the interrelationships among the dimensions of the environment in classifying firms.Using data from 102 companies in six4-digit industrial classification codes (SIC),cluster analysis was used to distinguish four environmental settings: “dynamic growth,” “hostile and rivalrous but technologically rich,” “hospitable, product-driven growth,” and “static and impoverished” environments. These four environments varied in their characteristics.The four empirically derived environment clusters were then used to examine variations in corporate entrepreneurship—operationalized as corporate innovation and venturing, and corporate renewal activities. The first dimension—corporate innovation and venturing—had four components: new business creation, new product introduction, percent of revenue from new products, and technological entrepreneurship. The renewal dimension had three components: mission reformulation, reorganization, and system-wide change. The data were used to test six hypotheses:

• 1.H1: In dynamic or growth environments, companies will emphasize new business creation and innovation.
• 2.H2: Environmental hostility is positively associated with the redefinition of business through venturing activities.
• 3.H3: Hospitable business environments are positively associated with business venturing and renewal activities.
• 4.H4: Static environments are inversely associated with corporate venturing and renewal activities.
• 5.H5: Corporate entrepreneurship activities are positively associated with company financial performance.
• 6.H6: Corporate entrepreneurship activities emphasised in HI through H4 will be significantly and positively associated with company financial performance in their respective environmental clusters.

The results provided general support for the six hypotheses. They showed that: (1) each environmental cluster had a distinct combination of activities relating to corporate innovation and venturing, and renewal; (2) corporate entrepreneurship activities varied in their associations with measures of company growth and profitability; and (3) the associations between corporate entrepreneurship and company financial performance varied among the four environment clusters. The results from this study can help executives in selecting specific entrepreneurial activities that match the demands of success in their business environment to improve their company's performance.     

The internal morality of the corporation

Is good morality the natural outcome of profitable business practices? The thesis explored here is one version of the recent literature on corporate culture, typified by the bestselling In Search of Excellence — that the corporation that creates a strong culture, one that best serves the customer, the product, and the employee, must also be profitable. The thesis turns out to have an historical parallel in Plato's Republic (subtitled, I suppose, “In Search of Justice”). Parallel “virtues” can be worked out for state and corporation. In the end, profitability turns out not to be a necessary consequence of excellence, just as Plato's “Ideal” state turned out to be mortal.     

Beyond Legitimacy: A Case Study in BP’s “Green Lashing”

This paper discusses the issue of legitimacy and, in particular the processes of building, losing, and repairing environmental legitimacy in the context of the Deepwater Horizon case. Following the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in 2010, BP plc. was accused of having set new records in the degree of divergence between its actual operations and what it had been communicating with regard to corporate responsibility. Its legitimacy crisis is here to be appraised as a case study in the discrepancy between symbolic and substantive strategies in corporate greening and its communication. A narrative analysis of BP’s “beyond petroleum”-rebranding and the “making this right”-campaign issued in response to the Gulf of Mexico disaster discusses their respective implications for (green) corporate change. Further, the question is addressed why BP’s green image endeavors were so widely accepted at first, only to find themselves dismissed as corporate greenwashing now. The study concludes that where a corporation’s “green narrative” consistently evokes established narratives, its legitimacy will be judged against narrative, rather than empirical truth. Thus, the narrative will be more willingly accepted as speaking for the issuing company’s legitimacy, irrespective of whether it reflects substantive greening or not.     

Building Partnerships to Create Social and Economic Value at the Base of the Global Development Pyramid

This paper builds on London and Hart’s critique that Prahalad’s best-selling book prompted a unilateral effort to find a fortune at the bottom of the pyramid (BoP). Prahalad’s instrumental, firm-centered construction suggests, perhaps unintentionally, a buccaneering style of business enterprise devoted to capturing markets rather than enabling new socially entrepreneurial ventures for those otherwise trapped in conditions of extreme poverty. London and Hart reframe Prahalad’s insight into direct global business enterprise toward “creating a fortune with the base of the pyramid” (p. xi) rather than at the BoP. This shift in language requires a recalibration of strategic focus, we argue, and will necessitate implementation of “moral imagination” to formulate new mental models that can frame the possibility of local entrepreneurs working collaboratively and discursively with development partners drawn from civil society, corporate, and government sectors. Successful partnerships will arise from interactive processes of emergent, co-creative learning within a shared problem domain or “community of practice”. We call attention to three related pluralist framings of situated learning within such communities of practice: (1) decentered stakeholder networks; (2) global action networks; and (3) a focus on “faces and places” as a cognitive lens to humanize and locally situate diverse inhabitants within base of the pyramid partnership projects.     

Defining a Post-Conventional Corporate Moral Responsibility

The stakeholder approach offers the opportunity to consider corporate responsibility in a wider sense than that afforded by the stockholder or shareholder approaches. Having said that, this article aims to show that this theory does not offer a normative corporate responsibility concept that can be our response to two basic questions. On the one hand, for what is the company morally responsible and, on the other hand, why is the corporation morally responsible in terms of conventional and post-conventional perspectives? The reason why the stakeholder approach does not offer such a definition, as we shall see, is because the normative stakeholder approaches tend to confuse the social validity with the moral validity or legitimacy. It leads us to a conventional definition of corporate moral responsibility (CMR) that is not relevant to the pluralistic and global framework of our societies and economies. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate this intuition.     

Moral Motivation Across Ethical Theories: What Can We Learn for Designing Corporate Ethics Programs?

In this article we discuss what are the implications for improving the design of corporate ethics programs, if we focus on the moral motivation accounts offered by main ethical theories. Virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism offer different criteria of judgment to face moral dilemmas: Aristotle’s virtues of character, Kant’s categorical imperative, and Mill’s greatest happiness principle are, respectively, their criteria to answer the question “What is the right thing to do?” We look at ethical theories from a different perspective: the question we ask is “Why should I do the right thing?” In other words, we deal with the problem of moral motivation, and we examine the different rationale the main ethical theories provide. We then point out the relation between moral motivation and the concept of rationality in the different approaches – is acting morally seen as an expression of rational behavior? Our analysis of moral motivation provides a useful framework to improve the understanding of the relationships between formal and informal elements of corporate ethics programs, emphasizing the importance of the latter, often overlooked in compliance-focused programs. We conclude by suggesting that the concept of moral imagination can provide a unifying approach to enhance the effectiveness of corporate ethics programs, by providing an intangible asset that supports the implementation of their formal components into management decision making.     

The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more

In the United States, entrepreneurs have been cussed and discussed, glorified and vilified, declared to be social misfits and bastions of the private enterprise system. Early in the life cycle of an entrepreneur, he or she may have been classified as being “unable to relate to family or peers,” later as “unwilling and unable to submit to or work with authority” to “jungle fighter” to “robber barron” to “philanthropist.” 5A common but incorrect assumption is that if one cannot adjust to the corporate environment, he or she should pursue an entrepreneurial career. Whether or not one can adjust does not preclude the necessity for the development of the skills and techniques required of a competent executive. The authors hypothesize that an entrepreneur must be a capable executive, and in addition, must possess a number of psychological characteristics to a greater or lesser degree than their corporate counterparts.This does not imply that all entrepreneurs are alike any more than all managers or executives are alike. Nor that the presence of a higher or lower level of a psychological trait or characteristic is itself sufficient for success. There are a number of sociological, psychological, demographic, and economic factors that appear to impact on the decision to enter entrepreneurial occupations. Although neither the absolute level of the impact of a psychological trait nor the interrelationship of the combined factors on the final decision-making process are known, research has indicated that significant differences in the intensity level of psychological traits or characteristics exist between entrepreneurs and managers or executives.This article discusses those traits that entrepreneurs exhibit at significantly different levels than do their corporate counterparts; how these factors may influence the decision to enter entrepreneurial occupations: and how these same traits have the propensity, if ignored, to have a negative influence on both the entrepreneur's organization and personal life-style.Entrepreneurs tend to be 1) tolerant of ambiguous situations, 2) prefer autonomy (autonomy may be described as self-reliance, dominance, and independence), 3) resist conformity, 4) be interpersonally aloof yet socially adroit, 5) enjoy risk-taking, 6) adapt readily to change, and 7) have a low need for support. These factors can lead to serious problems in delegation and communication, two factors of paramount importance to a growing concern. They may also cause intense stress or loneliness for the entrepreneur. Fortunately, the traits of willingness to accept change and ability to adapt to it will help the entrepreneur to accept and respond to problems that arise due to poor delegation or communication. Coping methods and a tolerance of ambiguity will assist the entrepreneur in dealing with stress and loneliness. The main problem is to alert the entrepreneur to the potentiality of these problems—which is what this article attempts to do.     

Kathleen Eisenhardt: recipient of the 2012 Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research

This article reviews the academic contributions of the 2012 receiver of the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research, Professor Kathleen Eisenhardt, Stanford Warren Ascherman Professor of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University. The Global Award consists of 100,000 euro and a statuette by the internationally renowned Swedish sculptor Carl Milles. Eisenhardt’s work focuses on strategy, strategic decision making, and innovation in rapidly changing and highly competitive markets. Her work in the entrepreneurship field centers on strategy and organization, especially in technology-based companies, what she refers to as “high-velocity industries”. Her main empirical contribution to the entrepreneurship field is her work on ‘corporate entrepreneurship’—how existing organizations can remain innovative, including through new venture creation. More generally, Kathleen Eisenhardt’s research has bridged the two fields of entrepreneurship research and organization science.