Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Society is Out There, Organisation is in Here”: On the Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Held by Different Managerial Groups

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an increasingly significant managerial concept, yet the manager as an agent of corporate bureaucracy has been substantially missing from both the analytical and conceptual literature dealing with CSR. This article, which is both interpretative in nature and specific in reference to the U.K. cultural context, represents an attempt at addressing this lacuna by utilising qualitative data to explore the perceptions of managers working in corporations with developed CSR programmes. Exploring managerial perceptions of motives for CSR initiatives, methods of stakeholder engagement, organisational integration of CSR and its impact on managerial work, this study concludes that an instrumental approach dominates, which indicates an external–internal organisational paradox in the design and execution of CSR initiatives.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, W.F., & Monsen, J.R. (1979). On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-Reported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Social Involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515. doi:10.2307/255740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, G.J., & Bucholz, R.A. (1978). Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21(3), 479–486. doi:10.2307/255728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., Willmott, H.: 1992, “Critical Theory and Management Studies. In M. Alvesson and H. Willmott (eds.), Critical Management Studies. London, Sage, 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B., & Hatfield, J.D. (1985). An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–443. doi:10.2307/256210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, S.B., & Lawler, E.J. 1980, Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakan, J. 2005, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, 2nd. Edition. London, Constable

    Google Scholar 

  • Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2003). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. 1993, Postmodern Ethics. Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U.: 1999, World Risk Society (Polity Press, Cambridge)

  • Beynon, H., Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J., & Ward, K. 2002, Managing Employment Change: The New Realities of Work. New York, OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, F. B. and J. A. Waters: 1989, ‹The Moral Muteness of Managers’, California Management Review 32(1), 73–88

  • Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295. doi:10.1177/000765039903800303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. (2000). Corporate greening as amoralization. Organization Studies, 21(4), 673–696. doi:10.1177/0170840600214001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dando, N., & Swift, T. (2003). Transparency and assurance: Minding the credibility gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 195–200. doi:10.1023/A:1023351816790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. doi:10.2307/258887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, D., & Peterson, J.C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 403–412. doi:10.2307/257332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S.W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management’s strategic influence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465–485. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E. 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, Pitman

    Google Scholar 

  • French, Peter A. (1995), Corporate Ethics. Harcourt Brace College Publishers: Fort Worth TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‹The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, 13 September

  • Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver, A., & Williams, K. 2006, Financialization and Strategy: Narrative and Numbers. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B.G. 1992, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing. Mill Valley Ca., Sociology Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2006). Social, Environmental and Sustainability Reporting and Organisational Value Creation? Whose Value? Whose Creation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819. doi:10.1108/09513570610709872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B.W. (2003). Corporate governance choices for corporate social responsibility: to contribute, collaborate or internalise? Long Range Planning, 36(5), 481–498. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(03)00115-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B.W., & de Jesus Salazar, J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00583.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackall, R. 1988, The Moral Maze: The World of Corporate Managers. New York, OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P., & Smith, K. (1999). Contextualising Business Ethics: Anomie and Social Life. Human Relations, 52(11), 1351–1375

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.M. (1995). Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437. doi:10.2307/258852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R.M. (2004). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review, 83, 150–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Kell, G. (2003). The global compact: Origins, operations, progress, challenges. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 11(Autumn), 35–49

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A.: 2000, ‹Organizational Response to Environmental Regulation: Punctuated Change or Autogenesis?’, Business Strategy and the Environment 9(4), 224–238. doi:10.1002/1099-0836(200007/08)9:4< 224::AID-BSE249>3.0.CO;2-X

  • Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 115–136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00585.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. 1985, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd. Edition. London, Duckworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Corporate social responsibility education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), 323–337. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-1822-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D.S. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127. doi:10.2307/259398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1111/1467-8594.00160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. 1949, Social Theory and Social Structure. Chicago, Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. doi:10.2307/259247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (1999). Tinged Shareholder Theory: or what’s so special about stakeholders? Business Ethics. A European Review 8(2), 117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., & Rynes, S.L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. doi:10.1177/0170840603024003910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. 2000, Contests for Corporate Control: Corporate Governance and Economic Performance in the US and Germany. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E., & Wicks, A.C. (2003). What Stakeholder Theory is Not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, E.P. (2004). The Lasting Marriage Between Nation and State Despite Globalization. International Political Science Review, 25(3), 251–257. doi:10.1177/0192512104043014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. (2001). Corporate Governance and the Ethics of Narcissus. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 109–127. doi:10.2307/3857872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A Brand New Brand of Social of Corporate Performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 397–418. doi:10.1177/000765030003900404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, E. (1997). The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5(1), 3–10. doi:10.1111/1467-8683.00034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoney & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the Conceptual Terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603–626. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Bos, R. and H. Willmott: 2001, ‹Towards a Post-Dualistic Business Ethics: Interweaving Reason and Emotion in Working Life’, Journal of Management Studies 38(6), 769–793

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasquez, M. (2003). Debunking Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 531–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2005). Is there a market for virtue?: The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. California Management Review, 47(4), 19–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, ‹The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G.R., Trevino, L.K., & Cochran, P.L. (1999a). Corporate Ethics Programs as Control Systems: Influences of Executive Commitment and Environmental Factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 41–57. doi:10.2307/256873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G.R., Trevino, L.K., & Cochran, P.L. (1999b). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552. doi:10.2307/256975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P.H. 1985, Persons, Rights, and Corporations. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. (2000). From Shareholder Value to Present-day Capitalism. Economy and Society, 29(1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/030851400360532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wills, A. (2003). The role of the Global Reporting Initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 233–237. doi:10.1023/A:1022958618391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. (2000). Business, State, and Community: ‹Responsible Risk Takers’, New Labour, and the Governance of Corporate Business. Journal of Law and Society, 27(1), 151–177. doi:10.1111/1467-6478.00150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Key Approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00584.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P. and S. P. Ferris: 1997, ‹Agency Conflict and Corporate Strategy: The Effect of Divestment on Corporate Value’, Strategic Management Journal 18(1), 77–83. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199701)18:1<77::AID-SMJ810>3.0.CO;2-R

  • Wright Mills, C. 1956, White Collar: The American Middle Classes. New York, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K.

    James A. H. S. Hine

  2. Royal Holloway College, University of London, London, U.K.

    Lutz Preuss

Authors
  1. James A. H. S. Hine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lutz Preuss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A. H. S. Hine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hine, J.A.H.S., Preuss, L. “Society is Out There, Organisation is in Here”: On the Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Held by Different Managerial Groups. J Bus Ethics 88, 381–393 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9970-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9970-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation