With CSR spending becoming mandatory in some prominent economies, quantum of spend is increasingly becoming a non issue. Instead spending right has acquired prominence. Ever since policy makers mulled the idea of making CSR spending compulsory, there appears to be rush and panic in the business world to spend on CSR activities that gives them the best return on their social investment. The debate is on for decades now, as to who should decide on what to spend and how much? For long in the name of CSR activities businesses have been spending on initiatives that were either a part of owner’s choice or were easy to identify and implement, mostly avoiding the views of stakeholders inside as well as outside. This paper attempts to address broadly the issue of stakeholder confidence and preference in a CSR initiative. The paper suggests a model of engagement of stakeholders both within and outside of a business for the roll out of a CSR initiative.
| Published in | International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (Volume 2, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11 |
| Page(s) | 13-19 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Corporate Social Responsibility, Stakeholder Theory of Firm
| [1] | Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation.American Institute of Planners, July, 216-224. Retrieved from http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html |
| [2] | Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper & Row: New York. |
| [3] | Bowmann-Larsen, L. and O. Wiggen. (2004), Responsibility in World Business: Managing Harmful Side-Effects of Corporate Activity (United Nations University Press, USA). |
| [4] | Brammer, S. and S. Pavelin. (2004), ‘Building a Good Reputation’, European Management Journal 22(6), 704–713. |
| [5] | Burke, L. and J. M. Logsdon. (1996), ‘How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off ’, Long Range Planning 29(4), 495–502. |
| [6] | Carroll, A. and A. Buchholtz. (2003), Business and Society, Ethics and Stakeholders Management, 5th Edition (Thomson, Mason (Ohio)). |
| [7] | Carroll, A. B. (1979), 'A Three-Dimensional Model of Corporate Performance', Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497-505. |
| [8] | Carroll, A. B. (1991), 'The Pyramid of Corporal Social Responsibility: Towards the Moral Management of Organisational Stakeholders', Business Horizons Jul? Aug, 39-48. |
| [9] | Castka, P., et al. (2004), ‘How can SMEs Effectively Implement the CSR Agenda? A UK Case Study Perspective’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 11, 140–149. |
| [10] | Clarkson, M.: 1995, 'A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Perfor mance', Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92 117. |
| [11] | Commission of the European communities, (2006). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and European Economic and Social Committee, Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: Making Europe a pole of Excellence on Corporate Social Responsibility. [March] Brussels Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0136:FIN:EN:PDF (May 10, 2010) |
| [12] | Daniels, J. and L. Radebaugh. (2001), International Business: Environments and Operations (Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey). |
| [13] | Department for Business Innovation and Skills [DBIS], (2009). The Benefits of Regulation: A public and business perceptions study. October 2009, URN 09/1403. Retrieved from http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file53236.pdf ( February 14, 2011) |
| [14] | Deresky, H. (2000), International Man-agement: Managing Across Boarders and Cultures (Prentice Hall Inc., New Delhi) |
| [15] | Dunfee, T. W. (1991), ‘Business Ethics and Extant Social Contracts’, Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1), 23–51. doi:10.2307/3857591. |
| [16] | Elsbach K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts’, Administrative Science Quarterly 39:57-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393494 |
| [17] | Epstein, E. M. (1989). Business ethics, corporate good citizenship and the corporate social policy process: A view from the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(8), 583–595. |
| [18] | Epstein, M. and M. Roy: (2001), ‘Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers’, Long Range Planning 34, 585–604. |
| [19] | European Commission (2001).Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility: green paper. Luxembourg: Office for official publication of the European Communities |
| [20] | Fairbrass, J. (2006), ‘UK Businesses and CSR Policy: Shaping the Debate in the EU’,Working Paper 06/31, School of Management, University of Bradford. October 2006. |
| [21] | Freeman, R. E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman Publishing Inc., Massachusetts). |
| [22] | French, P. A. (1984). Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press. |
| [23] | Gatto, Alexander C. (2002). The European Union and Corporate Social Responsibility: Can the E U contribute to the Accountability of Multinational Enterprise? Institute of International Law, Working Paper No 32 September. retrieved from https://www.law.kuleuven.be/iir/nl/onderzoek/wp/WP32e.pdf ( February 14,2011) |
| [24] | Glaser E., & Gyourko J. (2002). Zoning’s steep prices. Regulation, Fall |
| [25] | Greenfield, W. M. (2004), ‘In the Name of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Business Horizons 47(1), 19–28. |
| [26] | Hasnas, J. (1998), ‘The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed’, Business ethics Quarterly 8(1), 19–42. doi:10.2307/3857520. |
| [27] | Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind – Intercultural Cooperation and Its importance for Survival (McGraw-Hill, New York, USA). |
| [28] | Jones, T. M. and A. C. Wicks. (1999), 'Convergent Stakeholder Theory', The Academy of Management Review 24(2), 206-221. |
| [29] | Jones, T. M. (1980), ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Revisited, Redefined’, California Management Review 22(3), 59–67. |
| [30] | Maignan, I. and O. Ferrell: (2003), ‘Nature of Corporate Responsibilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German Consumers’, Journal of Business Research 56, 55–67. |
| [31] | Maignan, I., et al. (2002), ‘Managing Socially Responsible Buying: How to Integrate Non-Economic Criteria into the Purchasing Process’, European Management Journal 20(6), 641–648. |
| [32] | McGuire J. W. (1963). Business and Society. New York, McGraw Hill |
| [33] | Muller, A. (2006), ‘Global Versus Local CSR Strategies’, European Management Journal 24(2–3), 189–198. |
| [34] | Murray, K.B. and Vogel, C.M. (1997) ‘Using a Hierarchy-of Effects Approach to Gauge the Effectiveness of Corporate Social Responsibility to Generate Goodwill Toward the Firm: Financial versus Non financial Impacts’. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 38, 141-159 |
| [35] | O’Riordan, L. and J. Fairbrass. (2006), ‘Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Models and Theories in Stakeholder Dialogue’, Working Paper 06/45, School of Management, University of Bradford, November 2006. |
| [36] | Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organization ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Powell, W. W., & P. J. DiMaggio (eds.), (1991).The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago, Chicago |
| [37] | Pritchard A. C.(2003). Self-Regulation and Securities Markets. Regulation, Spring |
| [38] | Shaxson, N. (2009). Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative: Just a glorious audit? Chatham House.Retrieved from http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/15223_1109neiti.pdf ( December 28, 2009) |
| [39] | Soares, C. (2003). Corporate versus individual moral responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 43–150. |
| [40] | Trompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-Turner. (2004), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, 3rd Edition (Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London). |
| [41] | Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. (1981). A Need Hierarchy Framework for Assessing CSR. American Management Review 6 21-28, p 24 USA). |
| [42] | Utting, P., (2005). Rethinking Business Regulation: From Self-Regulation to Social Control Technology. Business nd Society Programme Paper, Number 15, September |
| [43] | Weiss, J. W. (1998), Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach (Dryden Press, Forth Worth) |
| [44] | Welford, R. (2004), ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and Asia: Critical Elements and Best Practice’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 13, 31–48. |
| [45] | Welford, R. (2005), ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 17, 33–52. |
| [46] | Wettstien F. (2009). Beyond voluntariness, beyond CSR: Making a case for human rights and justice Business and Society Review 114:1 125-1 |
| [47] | Wood, D. (1991), 'Corporate Social Performance Revisited', Academy of Management Review 16(4), 691-718. |
| [48] | Woodward, D., et al. (2001), ‘‘Some Evidence on Executives’’. Views of Corporate Social Responsibility’, British Accounting Review 33, 357–397. |
| [49] | Argandona, A.: 1998, 'The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good', Journal of Business Ethics 17(9/10), 1093-1102. |
| [50] | Harvey, B. and A. Schaefer: 2001, 'Managing Relation ships with Environmental Stakeholders: A Study of U. K. Water and Electricity Utilities', Journal of Business Ethics 30(3), 243-260. |
| [51] | Post, F. R.: 2003, 'A Response to "the Social Respon sibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Cri tique'", Mid-American Journal of Business 18(1), 25-35. |
| [52] | Ullmann, A.: 1985, 'Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationship among Social Perfor mance, Social Disclosure and Economic Performance', Academy of Management Review 10(3), 540-577. |
| [53] | Pesqueux, Y. 2011b. La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise (RSE) comme discours ambigu. Innovations, (34):37-55. |
| [54] | Palmer, D. E., & Stoll, M. L. 2011. Moving Toward a More Caring Stakeholder Theory: Global Business Ethicsin Dialogue with the Feminist Ethics of Care. In M. Hamington & M. Sander-Staudt (Eds.) Applying Care |
| [55] | Ethics to Business, 111–126. Springer. |
| [56] | J. E. Post, L. E. Preston, and S. Sachs, Redefining the Corporation:Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002). |
| [57] | J. S. Harrison and R. E. Freeman, “Stakeholders, social responsibility and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives,” Academyof Management Journal 42, 5(1999): 479–485; H. Mintzberg, “Thecase for corporate social responsibility,” Journal of Business Strategy 4, 2(1983): 3–15. |
| [58] | Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. 1997.‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts’. Academy of Management Review, 22:4, 853–886. |
APA Style
Jagannath Mohanty. (2014). Who Decides on What to Spend in CSR? Moving from Compulsion to Consensus. International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2(2), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11
ACS Style
Jagannath Mohanty. Who Decides on What to Spend in CSR? Moving from Compulsion to Consensus. Int. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2014, 2(2), 13-19. doi: 10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11
AMA Style
Jagannath Mohanty. Who Decides on What to Spend in CSR? Moving from Compulsion to Consensus. Int J Econ Behav Organ. 2014;2(2):13-19. doi: 10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11,
author = {Jagannath Mohanty},
title = {Who Decides on What to Spend in CSR? Moving from Compulsion to Consensus},
journal = {International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
pages = {13-19},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijebo.20140202.11},
abstract = {With CSR spending becoming mandatory in some prominent economies, quantum of spend is increasingly becoming a non issue. Instead spending right has acquired prominence. Ever since policy makers mulled the idea of making CSR spending compulsory, there appears to be rush and panic in the business world to spend on CSR activities that gives them the best return on their social investment. The debate is on for decades now, as to who should decide on what to spend and how much? For long in the name of CSR activities businesses have been spending on initiatives that were either a part of owner’s choice or were easy to identify and implement, mostly avoiding the views of stakeholders inside as well as outside. This paper attempts to address broadly the issue of stakeholder confidence and preference in a CSR initiative. The paper suggests a model of engagement of stakeholders both within and outside of a business for the roll out of a CSR initiative.},
year = {2014}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Who Decides on What to Spend in CSR? Moving from Compulsion to Consensus AU - Jagannath Mohanty Y1 - 2014/05/30 PY - 2014 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11 T2 - International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization JF - International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization JO - International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization SP - 13 EP - 19 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2328-7616 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijebo.20140202.11 AB - With CSR spending becoming mandatory in some prominent economies, quantum of spend is increasingly becoming a non issue. Instead spending right has acquired prominence. Ever since policy makers mulled the idea of making CSR spending compulsory, there appears to be rush and panic in the business world to spend on CSR activities that gives them the best return on their social investment. The debate is on for decades now, as to who should decide on what to spend and how much? For long in the name of CSR activities businesses have been spending on initiatives that were either a part of owner’s choice or were easy to identify and implement, mostly avoiding the views of stakeholders inside as well as outside. This paper attempts to address broadly the issue of stakeholder confidence and preference in a CSR initiative. The paper suggests a model of engagement of stakeholders both within and outside of a business for the roll out of a CSR initiative. VL - 2 IS - 2 ER -
Information
Email: