Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender, Business Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Assessing and Refocusing a Conversation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Leadership, Gender, and Organization

Part of the book series: Issues in Business Ethics ((IBET,volume 63))

  • 174 Accesses

Abstract

This article reviews a conversation between business ethicists and feminist scholars begun in the early 1990s and traces the development of that conversation in relation to feminist theory. A bibliographic analysis of the business ethics (BE) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) literatures over a twenty-five-year period elucidates the degree to which gender has been a salient concern, the methodologies adopted, and the ways in which gender has been analyzed (by geography, issue type, and theoretical perspective). Identifying significant limitations to the incorporation of feminist theory in these literatures, we discuss how feminist scholarship relating to behaviour (through psychology and related fields), organizations (through feminist organization studies), and economics (through feminist economics) could be integrated. We suggest that a better integration of feminist theory would strengthen BE/CSR research, and point to new research directions and agendas arising from our approach.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABDC (Australian Business Deans Council). 2016. ABDC releases new journal quality list. September 6. http://www.abdc.edu.au/news.php/100/abdc-releases-new-journal-quality-list

  • Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2): 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Gender, capitalism and globalization. Critical Sociology, 30(1): 17–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, E., & R. Batt 2014. Private equity at work: When Wall Street manages main street. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. G. 2016. Three models of impactful business ethics scholarship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(4): ix–xii.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrientos, S., C. Dolan, & A. Tallontire. 2003. A gendered value chain approach to codes of conduct in African horticulture. World Development, 31(9): 1511–1526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bear, S., N. Rahman & C. Post. 2010. The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2): 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgerson, J. L. 2007. On the harmony of feminist ethics and business ethics. Business and Society Review, 112(4): 477–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H. R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S. 2016. The moral economy: Why good incentives are no substitute for good citizens. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, W. W. 2011. At the conjunction of love and money: Comment on Julie A. Nelson, Does profit-seeking rule out love? Evidence (or not) from economics and law. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 35: 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B., & C. Dunn. 1996. Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2): 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2004. Undoing gender. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • CABS (Chartered Association of Business Schools). 2015. Academic journal guide 2015. https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2015/.

  • Calás, M. B., & L. Smircich. 1997. ¿Predicando la moral en calzoncillos? Feminist inquiries into business ethics. In A. Larson & R. E. Freeman (Eds.), Women’s studies and business ethics: Toward a new conversation: 50–79. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. From the “Woman’s Point of View” ten years later: Towards a feminist organization studies. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, W. Nord, & T. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd ed.): 284–346. London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, D. & J. Hearn. 1994. Naming men as men: Implications for work, organization and management. Gender, Work and Organization, 1(1): 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2(3): 70–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2): 312–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derry, R. 1996. Toward a feminist firm: Comments on John Dobson and Judith White. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(1): 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, J. & J. White. 1995. Toward the feminine firm: An extension to Thomas White. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3): 463–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, C., M. Johnstone-Louis & L. Scott. 2012. Shampoo, saris and SIM cards: Seeking entrepreneurial futures at the bottom of the pyramid. Gender and Development, 20(1): 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. & T. W Dunfee. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2): 252–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. Integrative social contracts theory: A communitarian conception of economic ethics, Economics and Philosophy, 11(1): 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E. & A. Falk. 2002. Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46(4–5): 687–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, M. A., & J. A. Nelson (Eds.). 1993. Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Feminist economics today. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, K. E. 1997. Postmodernism, feminism, and organizational ethics: Letting difference be. In A. Larson & R. E. Freeman (Eds.), Women’s studies and business ethics: Toward a new conversation: 80–91. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. 2010. Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., A. C. Wicks & B. Parmar. 2004. Stakeholder theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited.” Organization Science, 15(3): 364–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine: Sept 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E. & D. Melé. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. 2010. Feminist theory and organization theory: A dialogue on new bases. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1996. The end of capitalism (as we knew it): A feminist critique of political economy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. 1982. ln a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosser, K. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and gender equality: Women as stakeholders and the European Union sustainability strategy. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(3): 290–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Corporate social responsibility and multi-stakeholder governance: Pluralism, feminist perspectives and women’s NGOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1): 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosser, K. & J. Moon. 2005. Gender mainstreaming and corporate social responsibility: Reporting workplace issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4): 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. CSR and feminist organization studies: Towards an integrated theorization for the analysis of gender issues. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3510-x.

  • Harding, S. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. 2005. The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6): 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee, S. & J. S. Hyde. 2000. Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5): 703–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagger, A. 1992. Feminist ethics. In L. Becker & C. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics: 363–364. New York: Garland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & W. H. Meckling. 1976. The theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4): 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone-Louis, M. 2017. Corporate social responsibility and women’s entrepreneurship: Towards a more adequate theory of “work.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, J., D. Kemp & R. Ramsay. 2014. Company–community agreements, gender and development. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(4): 607–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelan, E. K. 2008. The discursive construction of gender in contemporary management literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 81: 427–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C. H. & J. Moon. 2015. Dynamics of corporate social responsibility in Asia: Knowledge and norms. Asian Business & Management, 14(5): 349–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, J. S. & J. Moon. 2017. Visible hands: National government and international CSR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrieta-Rubín de Celis, I., E. Velasco-Balmaseda., S. Fernández de Bobadilla & M. del Mar Alonso-Almeida, 2015. Does having women managers lead to increased gender equality practices in corporate social responsibility? Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(1): 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A. & R. E. Freeman. 1997. Introduction. In A. Larson & R. E. Freeman (Eds.), Women’s studies and business ethics: Toward a new conversation: 3–8. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauwo, S. 2016. Challenging masculinity in CSR disclosures: Silencing of women’s voices in Tanzania’s mining industry. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3047-4.

  • Liedtka, J. M. 1996. Feminist morality and competitive reality: A role for an ethic of care? Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2): 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. & K. Knopoff. 1997. The gendered implications of apparently gender-neutral theory: Rereading Max Weber. In A. Larson & R. E. Freeman (Eds.), Women’s studies and business ethics: Toward a new conversation: 30–49. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. & A. Crane. 2005. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, L. 2017. Empowering women through corporate social responsibility: A feminist Foucauldian critique. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, L. & J. N. Muthuri. 2016. Engaging fringe stakeholders in business and society research: Applying visual participatory research methods. Business & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316675610.

  • McGuire, J. W. 1963. Business and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. 2002. Business social responsibility and new governance. Government and Opposition, 37(3): 385–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J., Murphy, L. & J-P. Gond. 2017. Historical perspectives on CSR. In A. Rasche, M. Morsing, & J. Moon (Eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategy, Communication and Governance: 31–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. A. 2003. Separative and soluble firms: Androcentric bias in business ethics. In M. A. Ferber & J. A. Nelson (Eds.), Feminist economics today: Beyond economic man: 81–99. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Economics for humans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Does profit-seeking rule out love? Evidence (or not) from economics and law. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 35(69): 69–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. The power of stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate assessment: The case of economics, gender, and risk aversion. Journal of Economic Methodology, 21(3): 211–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Are women really more risk-averse than men? A re-analysis of the literature using expanded methods. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(3): 566–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, R. 2007. Beyond women workers: Gendering CSR. Third World Quarterly, 28(4): 731–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, M. 2014. Re-writing organizational environmentalism: Ecofeminism, corporeality and the language of feeling. Gender, Work & Organization, 21(5): 443–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L. & J. E. Post. 1975. Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto-Carrón, M. 2008. Women workers, industrialization, global supply chains and corporate codes of conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1): 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., M. Morsing & J. Moon. 2017. The changing role of business in global society: CSR and beyond. In A. Rasche, M. Morsing, & J. Moon (Eds.) Corporate social responsibility: Strategy, communication and governance: 1–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, C. & A. Pullen. 2017. Critical business ethics: From corporate self-interest to the glorification of the sovereign pater. International Journal of Management Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12142.

  • Roberts, A. 2015. The political economy of “transnational business feminism.” International Feminist Journal of Politics, 17(2): 209–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G. & G. Palazzo. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4): 899–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., A. Rasche, G. Palazzo & A. Spicer. 2016. Managing for political corporate social responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3): 273–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. C., & D. Rönnegard. 2016. Shareholder primacy, corporate social responsibility, and the role of business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3): 463–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout, L. 2012. The Shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors, corporations, and the public. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terjesen, S., & R. Sealy. 2016. Board gender quotas: Exploring ethical tensions from a multi-theoretical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(1): 23–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, R. 1993. Feminine and feminist ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornhill, S. 2016. The wins of corporate gender equality politics: Coca-Cola and female micro-entrepreneurship in South Africa. In K. Grosser, L. McCarthy, L. & M. A. Kilgour (Eds.), Gender equality and responsible business: Expanding CSR horizons: 185–202. Saltaire, UK: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, S. 2011. The future of feminism. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, C. & H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2): 125–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, T. 1992. Business, ethics, and Carol Gilligan’s “two voices.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(1): 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C. 1996. Reflections on the practical relevance of feminist thought to business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(4): 523–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., D. R. Gilbert, Jr. & R. E. Freeman. 1994. A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 475–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Kate Grosser

  2. Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Jeremy Moon

  3. University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA

    Julie A. Nelson

Authors
  1. Kate Grosser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julie A. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kate Grosser .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

    Mollie Painter

  2. Chicago, IL, USA

    Patricia H. Werhane

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Grosser, K., Moon, J., Nelson, J.A. (2023). Gender, Business Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Assessing and Refocusing a Conversation. In: Painter, M., Werhane, P.H. (eds) Leadership, Gender, and Organization. Issues in Business Ethics, vol 63. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24445-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation