Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different Markets for Different Folks: Exploring the Challenges of Mainstreaming Responsible Investment Practices

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

Abstract

The link between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and financial performance has continued to generate mixed and inconclusive results. Most studies in this area seem to assume that corporate social and financial performance share the same underpinning logic. Drawing from a qualitative analysis of practitioners’ accounts of the challenges of mainstreaming the market for responsible investments, as part of the broader CSR agenda, this article re-examines this taken-for-granted assumption in the extant literature, and reaches the conclusion that CSR, as a complex private governance of externalities, does not easily lend itself to measurability and profitability. In other words, not everything about CSR is measurable and profitable as much as the financial markets would expect. Comparing what is rendered measurable and profitable, on one hand, and what is yet to fully lend itself to measurability and profitability, on the other, is identified as one of the fundamental flaws of this literature. As such, CSR and financial performance will continue to run on competing logics until their different markets are distinctively articulated and/or aligned.

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

Abbreviations

CSR:

Corporate Social Responsibility

CSP:

Corporate social performance

ESG:

Environmental, Social and Governance

KPI:

Key Performance Indicator

SRI:

Socially Responsible Investment

SSF:

Social Studies of Finance

STS:

Socio-technical studies

References

  • Adler, M. and E. Ziglio: 1996, Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and Its Implications for Social Policy and Public Health (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London).

  • Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C.A., Conley, J. M. and Rupp, D. E. 2006. Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility: a comparative analysis of the UK and the US, Corporate Governance: An International Review 14 (3), 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amable, B. 2003. The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amaeshi, K.: 2008. ‘Exploring the Institutional Embeddedness of Corporate Stakeholding and Social Responsibility: A Comparative Political Economy Perspective’, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick.

  • Amaeshi, K., and Adi, B. C. 2007. Reconstructing Corporate Social Responsibility Construct in Utilish, Business Ethics European Review 16(1), 3-18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaeshi, K. and Amao, O. 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility in Transnational Spaces: Exploring the influences of varieties of capitalism on expressions of corporate codes of conduct in Nigeria, Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2):225-239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araujo, L. 2007. Markets, market-making and marketing. Marketing Theory, 7(3):211-226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D. P. 2009. A Positive Theory of Moral Management, Social Pressure, and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1):7-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W.,1967. Business Behavior, Value and Growth. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckert, J., 2009. The social order of markets. Theory and Society, 2009, 38(3):245-269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beunza, D. and Stark, D. 2003. The Organization of Responsiveness: Innovation and Recovery in the Trading Rooms of Lower Manhattan. Socio-Economic Review, 1(2):135-164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beunza, D. and Stark, D. 2004. Tools of the Trade: The Socio-Technology of Arbitrage in a Wall Street Trading Room. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(1):369-401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., Mol, M.J. 2008. Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4):825–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. 2009. Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3-4):535-548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon M, Muniesa F, 2005. Economic Markets as Calculative Collective Devices, Organization Studies, 26(8):1229-1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L.: 2007, ‘Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 32(3), 946–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C, (2005). Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C.: 2006, `Modelling the Firm in Its Market and Organizational Environment: Methodologies for Studying Corporate Social Responsibility', Organization Studies, 27, 1533–1551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dejean, F., Gond, J-P, and Leca, B. 2004. Measuring the unmeasured: an institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emerging industry. Human Relations, 57(6):741-764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dore, R. 2000. Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism, Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurosif: 2005, Eurosif SRI Study.

  • FairPension: 2008, Investor Responsibility? UK Fund Managers' Performance and Accountability on ‘Extra-Financial’ Risks Report (London).

  • Fiss, P. C. and Zajac. E. J. 2004. The Diffusion of Ideas over Contested Terrain: The (Non)adoption of a Shareholder Value Orientation among German Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 501-534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N.1996. “Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions”. American Sociological Review, 61:656–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N. and Dauter, L. 2007. The sociology of markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1):105-128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R. and R. R. Alford: 1991, ‘Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions’, in W. W. Powell and P. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).

  • Gjølberg, M. 2009. The origin of corporate social responsibility: global forces or national legacies? Socio-Economic Review, 7(4):605-637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J-P, and Igalens, J. 2005. Measuring corporate social performance in France: a critical and empirical analysis of ARESE data. Journal of Business Ethics, 56:131-148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: A theory of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3):481-510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D.(Eds). 2001. Varieties of Capitalism – The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancke, B., M. Rhodes and M. Thatcher: 2007, ‘Introduction: Beyond Varieties of Capitalism’, in B. Hancke, M. Rhodes and M. Thatcher (eds.), Beyond Varieties of Capitalism: Conflict, Contradictions, and Complementarities in the European Economy (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

  • Helmer, O.: 1977, ‘Problems in Futures Research: Delphi and Causal Cross-Impact Analysis’, Futures 9, 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, C. E. and Rothenberg, s. 2008. Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(7):781-789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, N. J. and J. Moon: 2009, ‘Conceptualising National Variations and Change in CSR: An Exploration of the State-Led Model’, Paper presented at the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics (SASE) 2009 Conference on “Capitalism in Crisis”, Sciences Po, Paris.

  • Karnoe, P.: 2004, ‘The Dynamics of Framing in Transactional Spaces: The Co-Creation of Worth, Calculative Devices and Calculative Agencies in the Danish Wind Power Market’, Copenhagen Business School Working Paper No 2004.18, http://ir.lib.cbs.dk/download/ISBN/x656455992.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2005.

  • Kjellberg, H. and Helgesson, C. 2006. Multiple versions of markets: Multiplicity and performativity in market practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(7):839-855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, 1975; cited in Birkinshaw, J., G. Hamel, M. J. Mol: 2008, ‘Management Innovation’, Academy of Management Review 33(4), 825–845.

  • Loasby, B. J. 1999. Knowledge, Institutions and Evolution in Economics. London, Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, L. 2005. Marketing and making carbon dumps: Commodification, calculation and counterfactuals in climate change mitigation, Science as Culture 14:203–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. and Millo, Y. 2003. Constructing a Market, Performing Theory: The Historical Sociology of a Financial Derivatives Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1):107-145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., and Barney, J. B. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance: Investor Preferences and Corporate Strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3):817-835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J., H. Elfenbein and A. Walsh: 2007, ‘Does It Pay to be Good? A Meta-Analysis and Redirection of Research on Corporate Social and Financial Performance’, Presented at Annual Conference of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.

  • Matten, D. and J. Moon: 2008, ‘“Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 33(2), 404–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey Global Institute: 2007, ‘Mapping the Global Capital Market Third Annual Report’, http://jwc.shfc.edu.cn/jryj/Upfiles/2007122184824187.pdf. Accessed 11 Aug 2008.

  • Mollering, G., 2006. Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. Elsevier: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muniesa, F., and Callon, M. 2008. Economic Experiments and the Construction of Markets. In: Do Economists Make Markets? On the performativity of Economics (Eds. D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, and L. Siu), Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organization Studies, 24:403-441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., and Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29:635-652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, B. J. 2009. Keeping ethical investment ethical: regulatory issues for investing for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 87:555-572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeco Investment Management and Booz & Company: 2007, ‘Responsible Investing: A Paradigm Shift – from Niche to Mainstream’, http://www.robeco.com/eng/images/Whitepaper_Booz&co%20SRI_final_tcm143-113658.pdf.

  • Simakova, E. and Neyland, D. 2008. Marketing mobile futures: assembling constituencies and creating compelling stories for an emerging technology, Marketing Theory, 8(1):91-116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. R., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., and Robichaud, D.1996. The communicational basis of organization: between the conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6:1-39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O.: 1996, The Mechanisms of Governance (Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford).

List of Reports Referenced in the Paper

  • Arthur D. Little Consulting: 2003, Speaking the Same Language – Improving Communications Between Companies and Investors on Corporate Responsibility.

  • Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship: 2007, The Use of Non-Financial Information: What Do Retail Investors Want?

  • Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship: 2008, Corporate Reporting of Social, Environmental, and Governance Information: What Investors Want?

  • BSR: 2008, Environmental, Social and Governance: Moving to Mainstream Investing?

  • Business in the Environment: 2003, Investing in the Future.

  • EFFAS: 2008, KPIs Reports.

  • EIRIS: 2006, Valuing ESG Issues – A Survey of Investors.

  • Ernst and Young: 2007, Financial Reporting: KPMG’s Survey of Leading Investors.

  • Goldman Sachs: 2007 GS Sustain.

  • Sustainability Research: 2008, Research Network for Business Sustainability.

  • UNEPFI: 2004, The Materiality of Social, Environmental and Corporate Governance Issues to Equity Pricing.

  • WestLB: 2007, What Really Counts – The Materiality of Extra-Financial Factors.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh Business School, Adam Ferguson Building, 50 George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9JY, U.K.

    Kenneth Amaeshi

Authors
  1. Kenneth Amaeshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Amaeshi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Amaeshi, K. Different Markets for Different Folks: Exploring the Challenges of Mainstreaming Responsible Investment Practices. J Bus Ethics 92 (Suppl 1), 41–56 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0633-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0633-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation