nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

01.09.2013

Terminology Matters: A Critical Exploration of Corporate Social Responsibility Terms

verfasst von: Denise Baden, Ian A. Harwood

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 3/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance and impact of terminology used to describe corporate social responsibility (CSR). Through a review of key literature and concepts, we uncover how the economic business case has become the dominant driver behind CSR action. With reference to the literature on semiotics, connotative meaning and social marketing we explore how the terminology itself may have facilitated this co-opting of an ethical concept by economic interests. The broader issue of moral muteness and its relation to ethical behaviour is considered. We conclude by proposing a number of important attributes for any proposed terminology relating to ethical/socially responsible/sustainable business.

Vorheriger Artikel Fixing the Game? Legitimacy, Morality Policy and Research in Gambling

Nächster Artikel For the Good or the Bad? Interactive Effects of Transformational Leadership with Moral and Authoritarian Leadership Behaviors

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

CSR is “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (Commission of the European Communities 2001, p. 8).

We are viewing CSP along the lines of Wood’s (1991, p. 693) definition: ‘a business organisation’s configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationships.’

Griffin and Mahon (1997) found 33 research studies indicating a positive relationship between CSP and CFP, 20 that found a negative relationship and 9 with no relationship or which were inconclusive, whereas Roman et al. (1999) report 33 studies that suggest a positive CSP–CFP relationship, 5 studies that show a negative relationship and 14 with no relationship or which were inconclusive.

In preparation for a paper (Harwood and Baden 2009) we looked up the frequency of terms such as CSR and ‘sustainable’ on the ISI Web of Knowledge database. We found that in many cases the term ‘sustainable’ was being used to mean business survival rather than in its environmental or social sense.

It is worth noting that these were managers’ perceptions only, in fact, as discussed by Kreps and Monin (2011), evidence points to managers’ fears being unjustified, with open expression of ethical concerns being generally associated with positive outcomes for both the manager and the organisation.

The term ‘Organisational Integrity’ arose from a discussion between one of the authors and Prof. Roderick Martin (Centre for Policy Studies at the Central European University, Hungary) at the BAM conference 2011. Others have drawn on the concept of ‘organisational integrity’ (Kayes et al. 2007; Paine 1994).

Acar, W., Aupperle, K. E., & Lowy, R. M. (2001). An empirical exploration of measures of social responsibility across the spectrum of organizational types. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(1), 26–57.CrossRef

Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. (2005). A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, 57(1), 8–41.

Baden, D., & I. A. Harwood. (2010). Corporate social responsibility on trial. In BAM, Sheffield.

Baden, D. A., Harwood, I. A., & Woodward, D. G. (2009). The effect of buyer pressure on suppliers in SMEs to demonstrate CSR practices: An added incentive or counter productive? European Management Journal, 27(6), 429–441.CrossRef

Baden, D., Harwood, I. A., & Woodward, D. G. (2011). The effects of procurement policies on ‘downstream’ corporate social responsibility activity: Content-analytic insights into the views and actions of SME owner-managers. International Small Business Journal, 29(3), 259–277.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.CrossRef

Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101–110.CrossRef

Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.CrossRef

Bicchieri, C. (1988). Should a scientist abstain from metaphor? In A. Klamer, D. N. McCloskey, & R. M. Solow (Eds.), The consequences of economic rhetoric (pp. 110–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bird, F. B., & Waters, J. A. (1989). The moral muteness of managers. California Management Review, 32(1), 73–88.

BITC. (2003). Engaging SMEs in community and social issues. London: Business in the Community.

Boatright, J. R. (1992). Morality in practice: Dees, Crampton, and Brer Rabbit on a problem of applied ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 63–73.CrossRef

Bogenhold, D. (2004). Entrepreneurship: Multiple meanings and consequences. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 4(1), 3–10.CrossRef

Bondy, K., J. Moon, & D. Matten. (2012) An institution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multi-national corporations (MNCs): Form and implications. Journal of Business Ethics.

Brooks, S. (2010). CSR and the straitjacket of economic rationality. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 11(12), 604–617.CrossRef

Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: Changing relationships between companies and NGOs. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 35–46.CrossRef

Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2000). Moral awareness in business organizations: Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 53(7), 981–1018.CrossRef

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

Carroll, A. B. (1994). Social issues in management research: Experts’ views, analysis and commentary. Business & Society, 33, 5–29.CrossRef

Chell, E. (2008). The entrepreneurial personality: A social construction. Routledge: The Psychology Press.CrossRef

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

Cohn, C. (1987). Slick Ems, glick Ems, Christmas trees and Cookie cutters—Nuclear language and how we learned to pat the bomb. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 43(5), 17–24.

Corporate Watch (Ed.). (2006). What’s wrong with corporate social responsibility? Corporate Watch Report 2006.

Crook, C. (2005). The good company. The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/3555212. Accessed 18 Sep 2012.

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). When ethics travel: The promise and peril of global business ethics. California Management Review, 41(4), 45.CrossRef

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

Dryzek, J. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Edelman, M. (1985). Political language and political reality. PS, 18(1), 10–19.CrossRef

Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.

Environment Agency. (2003). SME-nvironment 2003. Environment Agency—Net-regs.

European Commission. (2002). European SMEs and Social and Environmental Responsibility. Observatory of European SMEs.

Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.CrossRef

Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Futerra. (2007). Words that sell, challenging the language of sustainability. Futerra Sustainability Communications.

Garriga, E., & Mele, D. N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.CrossRef

Gentile, M. (2010). Giving voice to values. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.CrossRef

Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.

Giacalone, R. A., & Thompson, K. R. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 266–277.CrossRef

Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gioia, D. A. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 379–389.CrossRef

Goodpaster, K. E., & Holloran, T. E. (1994). In defense of a paradox. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 423–429.CrossRef

Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.CrossRef

Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harwood, I. A., & D. Baden. (2009). Corporate social responsibility—What’s in a name? In BAM, Brighton.

Herring, H. (2006). Energy efficiency—A critical view. Energy, 31(1), 10–20.CrossRef

Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.CrossRef

Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.CrossRef

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision-making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

Kang Y. C., & Wood D. J. (1995) Before-profit corporate social responsibility: turning the economic paradigm upside-down. In: Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society. Vienna, Austria: IABS.

Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64(6), 843–869.CrossRef

Kayes, D. C., Stirling, D., & Nielsen, T. M. (2007). Building organizational integrity. Business Horizons, 50, 61–70.CrossRef

Kennedy, S. (2010). Using a stakeholder thinking approach to investigate barriers to the implementation of sustainable development. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1977). The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. Journal of Management Studies, 14, 34–57.CrossRef

Keynes, J. M. (1953). The general theory of employment, interest and money. Ney York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Kimerling, J. (2001). The human face of petroleum: Sustainable development in Amazonia? RECIEL, 10, 65–81.

Kreps, T. A., & Monin, B. (2011). Doing well by doing good? Ambivalent moral framing in organizations. In B. M. Staw & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 31, pp. 99–123). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.

Liberman, V., Samuels, S., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputation vs. situational la bels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1175–1185.CrossRef

Lohmann, L. (1999). Forest cleansing: Racial oppression in scientific nature conservation. Corner House Briefing 13.

Margolis, J., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Boston: Mimeo.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.CrossRef

McPhail, K. (2001). The other objective of ethics education: Re-humanising the accounting profession—A study of ethics education in law, engineering, medicine and accountancy. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 279–298.CrossRef

Mellahi, K., & Wood, G. (2003). The role and potential of stakeholders in “Hollow Participation”: Conventional stakeholder theory and institutionalist alternatives. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 183–202.CrossRef

Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053.CrossRef

Moezzi, M. (1998). The predicament of efficiency (pp. 4.273–4.282). Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Moore, G. (1999). Tinged shareholder theory: Or what’s so special about stakeholders? Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(2), 117–127.CrossRef

Nijhof, A. H. J., & Jeurissen, R. J. M. (2010). The glass ceiling of corporate social responsibility: Consequences of a business case approach towards CSR. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(11/12), 618–631.CrossRef

Norgaard, R. B. (1988). Sustainable Development—A co-evolutionary view. Futures, 20(6), 606–620.CrossRef

Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 613–627.CrossRef

O’Riordan, T. (1988). The politics of sustainability. In K. Turner (Ed.), Sustainable environmental management: Principle and practice (pp. 37–39). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.CrossRef

Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language. Horizon, 13(76), 252–265.

Osterman, P. (1999). Securing prosperity: How the American labor market has changed and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106–117.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 118–129.CrossRef

Parkes, C., Scully, J., & Anson, S. (2010). CSR and the “undeserving”: A role for the state, civil society and business? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(11/12), 697–708.CrossRef

Philips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRef

Quinn, D. P., & Jones, T. M. (1995). An agent morality view of business policy. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 22–42.

Ratner, B. D. (2004). “Sustainability” as a dialogue of values: Challenges to the sociology of development. Sociological Inquiry, 74(1), 50–69.CrossRef

Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): An oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development, 13(4), 212–227.CrossRef

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

Roddick, A. (2002). Interview with Anita Roddick, conducted by N. M. Pless, London, February 11. Retrieved 18 Nov, 2011, from http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79p/.

Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S., & Agle, B. R. (1999). The relationship between social and financial performance: Repainting a portrait. Business and Society, 38(1), 109–125.CrossRef

Rondinelli, D. A. (2002). Public–private partnerships. In C. Kirkpatrick, R. Clarke, & C. Polidano (Eds.), Handbook on development policy and management (pp. 381–388). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.CrossRef

Swanson, D. L. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 506–521.

Tancredi, L. (2005). Hardwired behavior: What neuroscience reveals about morality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, A. (2010). Managing business ethics. Hoboken: Wiley.

Utting, P. (2000). Business responsibility for sustainable development. Geneva: United Nations research Institute for Sustainable Development.

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

WCED. (1987). Our common future: World Commission on Environment and Development. Bruntland Commission. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weizsäcker, E. U. V., Young, O. R., Finger, M., & Beisheim, M. (2005). Limits to privatization: How to avoid too much of a good thing, a report to the club of Rome. London: Earthscan.

Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114.CrossRef

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84.CrossRef

Wunder, S., & M. T. Vargas. (2005). Beyond markets: Why terminology matters. Katoomba Group’s Ecosystem Marketplace. http://ecosystemmarketplace.net/pages/.

Titel: Terminology Matters: A Critical Exploration of Corporate Social Responsibility Terms
verfasst von: Denise Baden
Ian A. Harwood
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1498-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2013

Does It Make Sense to Be a Loyal Employee?

Ethical Climate and Purchasing Social Responsibility: A Benevolence Focus

The Moderating Effects of Political Skill and Leader–Member Exchange on the Relationship Between Organizational Politics and Affective Commitment

Executive Pay and Legitimacy: Changing Discursive Battles Over the Morality of Excessive Manager Compensation

Falling or Not Falling into Temptation? Multiple Faces of Temptation, Monetary Intelligence, and Unethical Intentions Across Gender

When and Why Usury Should be Prohibited