Skip to main content
Log in

Corporations, Civil Society, and Stakeholders: An Organizational Conceptualization

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

Abstract

This article presents a descriptive conceptual framework comprising four different company configurations with respect to orientations toward corporate social responsibility (CSR). The four types are Skeptical, Pragmatic, Engaged, and Idealistic. The framework is grounded in instrumental and normative stakeholder theory, and a company’s configuration is based on its instrumental and/or normative stance toward stakeholders. Its configuration indicates what position a company adopts in relation to CSR. This article argues that there is no one formula to fit all companies, descriptively or prescriptively, but the potential variety in approaches to CSR is not infinite, as it can be distilled logically into a few fundamental approaches, embodied in the four organizational configurations presented in the conceptual framework. Each configuration constitutes a middle-range theory of interlocking characteristics in terms of CSR, and so each type of company will assume responsibilities to civil society in ways consistent with its configurational characteristics. The framework incorporates previous empirical findings and theoretical explanations. It is intuitively clear and reasonable to managers, and thus, has practical value in organizational management.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agle, B.R. and R.K. Mitchell: 2008, ‘Introduction: Recent Research and New Questions’, Business Ethics Quarterly 18(2), 153-159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez Ma Valle, S.: 2002, ‘The Phenomenon of Organizational Evolution: A Model for Analysis’, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal 23(4), 215-227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C.: 1990, Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Design (Allyn & Bacon, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., R. Putnam and D. McLain Smith:1985, Action Science (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. and D.Schon: 1978, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S.R.: 1969, A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planners Journal 35(July), 216-224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balogun, J., and V.H. Hailey: 2004, Exploring Corporate Change (Second edition) (FT Prentice Hall, Harlow, Essex, UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartkus, B.R. and M. Glassman: 2008, ‘Do Firms Practice What They Preach? The Relationship Between Mission Statements and Stakeholder Management’, Journal of Business Ethics 83, 207-216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, A.: 2005, ‘Coffees with a Conscience’, Financial Times October 18, 2005, p. 13

  • Bennett, A. and C. Elman: 2007, ‘Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield’, Comparative Political Studies 40(2), 170-195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., J. Surroca and J.A. Tribo: 2007, Corporate Ethical Identity as a Determinant of Firm Performance: A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder Satisfaction’, Journal of Business Ethics 76, 35-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M.M., and L.A. Stout: 1999, ‘Director Accountability and the Mediating Role of the Corporate Board’, Washington University Law Quarterly 79, 403-449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N.E.: 1999, Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective (Blackwell, Malden, MA & Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L.: 2005, ‘Organizational Identity Orientation: Forging a Link Between Organizational Identity and Organizations’ Relations with Stakeholders’, Administrative Science Quarterly 50(4), 576-609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L.: 2007, ‘Organizational Identity Orientation: The Genesis of the Role of the Firm and Distinct Forms of Social Value’, Academy of Management Review 32(3), 864-888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broussine, M., and C. Miller: 2005, ‘Leadership, Ethical Dilemmas and ‘good’ Authority in Public Service Partnership Working’, Business Ethics: A European Review 14(4), 379-391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A.: 1997, ‘Stakeholders: The Case in Favor’, Long Range Planning 30, 446-449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. and D. M. Sundahl: 2001, The Process of Theory-Building, Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 02-016

  • Clarkson, M.B.E.: 1991. ‘Defining, Evaluating, and Managing Corporate Social Performance: The Stakeholder Management Model’ in J. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 12, 331-358, (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M.B.E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92-117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, D., S.S. Schneider and M. Zollo: 2008, ‘Psychological Antecedents to Socially Responsible Behavior’, European Management Review 5(3), 175-190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, J.F., N. Bettridge, and P. Toyne: 2005, ‘Responding to Global Business Critical Issues: A Source of Innovation and Transformation for FTSE 350 Companies’, Corporate Governance - The International Journal of Business in Society 5(3), 42-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A.: 1999, A Strategic Approach to Corporate Governance (Gower, Aldershot, UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, B. and R. Meyer: 2004, Strategy Process, Content, Context – An International Perspective (Thomson, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G.G., G.T. Lumpkin and J.G. Covin: 1997, ‘Entrepreneurial Strategy Making and Firm Performance: Tests of Contingency and Configurational Models’, Strategic Management Journal 18, 677-695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiNorcia, V. and J. Tigner: 2000, ‘Mixed Motives and Ethical Decisions in Business’, Journal of Business Ethics 25(1), 1-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T.: 1999, ‘Making Stakeholder Theory Whole’, Academy of Management Review 24, 237-241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T.: 2008, ‘Two Stories’, Business Ethics Quarterly 18(2), 172-176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and T.W. Dunfee: 1999, Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and L.E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20, 65-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty, D.H. and W.H. Glick: 1994, ‘Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling’, Academy of Management Review 19(2), 230-251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, M.: 2006, ‘Beyond the Stalemate of Economics Versus Ethics: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Discourse of the Organizational Self’, Journal of Business Ethics 66, 337-356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A.: 1998, ‘A Communitarian Note on Stakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 8(4), 679-691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everett, J.S., D. Neu and D. Martinez: 2008, ‘Multi-Stakeholder Labour Monitoring Organizations: Egoists, Instrumentalists, or Moralists’, Journal of Business Ethics 81, 117-142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P.C.: 2007, ‘A Set-Theoretic Approach to Organizational Configurations’, Academy of Management Review 32(4), 1180-1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, D. and J. Jonker: 2005, ‘Stakeholder Relationships: The Dialogue of Engagement’, Corporate Governance – The International Journal of Business in Society 5(5), 51-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E.: 1994, ‘The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 409-421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E.: 1999, ‘Divergent Stakeholder Theory’, Academy of Management Review 24, 233-236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman: 1989, Organizational Ecology (Harvard University Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S.L. and S. Sharma: 2004, ‘Engaging Fringe Stakeholders for Competitive Imagination’, Academy of Management Executive 18(1), 7-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, L.T.: 1998, ‘The Wreck of the Exxon Valdez: The Need for Imagination, Empathy and Courage’, Business Ethics Quarterly 8, 109-122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, L.T. and C. Kiewitz: 2005, ‘Organizational Justice: A Behavioral Science Concept with Critical Implications for Business Ethics and Stakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 15(1), 67-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, N.: 2004, Transnational Corporations and the Provision of Assistance, The Prudential Lecture, Rutgers University, 20 October

  • Isdell, N.: 2008, ‘Attacking the Olympics Won’t Help Darfur’, Financial Times April 18, 2008

  • Jamali, D.: 2008, ‘A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 82, 213-231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T., W. Felps and G.A. Bigley: 2007, ‘ Ethical Theory and Stakeholder-Related Decisions: The Role of Stakeholder Culture’, Academy of Management Review 32(1), 137-155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.M. and A.C. Wicks: 1999, ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory’, Academy of Management Review 24, 206-221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J.: 2002, ‘Morality and Strategy in Stakeholder Identification’, Journal of Business Ethics 39 (1-2), 91-99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J.: 2003, ‘Differentiating Stakeholder Theories’, Journal of Business Ethics 46(1), 71-83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J.: 2006, ‘Evaluating Stakeholder Theory’, Journal of Business Ethics 69, 249-268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, J.: 1997, ‘The Stakeholder Corporation’, in G. Kelly, D. Kelly, and A. Gamble (eds.), Stakeholder Capitalism, Chapter 12 (Macmillan Press Ltd., Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK), pp. 125–141

  • Kay, J. and A. Silberston: 1995, ‘Corporate Governance’, National Institute Economic Review 153 (August), 84-97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letza, S., X. Sun, and J. Kirkbride: 2004, ‘Shareholding Versus Stakeholding: A Critical Review of Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(3): 242-262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, J.M.: 2005, ‘Towards the Relational Corporation: From Managing Stakeholder Relationships to Building Stakeholder Relationships (Waiting for Copernicus)’, Corporate Governance – The International Journal of Business in Society 5(2), 60-77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maharaj, R.: 2008, ‘Critiquing and Contrasting “Moral” Stakeholder Theory and “Strategic” Stakeholder: Implications for the Board of Directors’, Corporate Governance – The International Journal of Business in Society 8(2), 115-127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, A.: 2004, ‘The Value of an Investment in Human Rights’, Financial Times October 28, 2004, p. 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J.D. and J.P. Walsh: 2003, ‘Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’, Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268-305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B. and A. Marcus: 2005, ‘Embedded Ties and the Acquisition of Competitive Capabilities’, Strategic Management Journal 26(11), 1033-1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., D.S. Siegel and P.M. Wright: 2006, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications’, Journal of Management Studies 43(1), 1-18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K.: 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure (The Free Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, C.E.: 1998, ‘The Stakeholder Corporation’, Business Ethics: A European Review 7, 30-36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A.D., A.S. Tsui and C.R. Hinings: 1993, ‘Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis’, Academy of Management Journal 38(6), 1175-1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D.: 1986, ‘Configurations of Strategy and Structure: Towards a Synthesis’, Strategic Management Journal 7(3), 233-249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. and P.H. Friesen: 1984, Organizations: A Quantum View (Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle and D.J. Wood: 1997, ‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’, Academy of Management Review 22, 853-886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moir, L.: 2001, ‘What Do We Mean by Corporate Social Responsibility?’, Corporate Governance- The International Journal of Business in Society 1(2), 16-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (Ed.): 2006, Social Entrepreneurship – New Models of Sustainable Social Change (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Higgins, E.: 2003, ‘Global Strategies: Contradictions and Consequences’, Corporate Governance - The International Journal of Business in Society 3(3): 52-66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., F.L. Schmidt and S.L. Rynes: 2003, ‘Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis’, Organization Studies 24(3), 403-441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R.A.: 2003, Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinder, C.C. and L.F. Moore: 1979, ‘The Resurrection of Taxonomy to Aid the Development of Middle Range Theories of Organizational Behavior’, Administrative Science Quarterly 24(1), 99-118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E.: 1998, Competitive Advantage (The Free Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. and M.R. Kramer: 2006, ‘Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 78-92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J.E.: 2002, ‘The ‘Iron Law’ of Business Responsibility Revisited: Lessons from South Africa (S.Prakash Sethi and Oliver Williams, Economic Imperatives and Ethical Values in Global Business: The South African Experience and International Codes Today)’, Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 265-276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K.: 2004, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruzan, P.: 2001, ‘The Question of Organizational Consciousness: Can Organizations Have Values, Virtues and Visions?’, Journal of Business Ethics 29, 271-284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, D.: 2002, ‘Employing Normative Stakeholder Theory in Developing Countries: A Critical Theory Perspective’, Business and Society 41(2), 166-207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roddick, A.: 2005, Business as Unusual: The Triumph of Anita Roddick and The Body Shop (Harper Thorsons, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roloff, J.: 2008, ‘Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue Focused Stakeholder Management’, Journal of Business Ethics 82, 233-250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagawa, S. and E. Segal: 2000, Common Interest, Common Good (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneper, W.D. and M.F. Guillen: 2004, ‘Stakeholder Rights and Corporate Governance: A Cross-National Study of Hostile Takeovers’, Administrative Science Quarterly 49, 263-295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P.: 1983, Leadership in Administration (University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles).

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P.M., M. Dow and G. Neath: 2006, ‘Learning Together: New Partnerships for New Times’, Corporate Governance – The International Journal of Business in Society 6(4), 420-430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steger, U., A. Ionescu-Somers and O.Salzmann: 2007, ‘The Economic Foundations of Corporate Sustainability’, Corporate Governance – The International Journal of Business in Society, 7(2), 162-177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoney, C. and D. Winstanley: 2001, ‘Stakeholding: Confusion or Utopia: Mapping the Conceptual Terrain’, Journal of Management Studies, 38, 603-626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, I. and J. Bebbington: 2005, ‘Social and Environmental Reporting in the UK: A Pedagogic Evaluation’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16, 507-533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNDP: 2004, Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business Work for the Poor (Commission on the Private Sector & Development Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, B.: 2008, ‘An Ethical Framework for the Marketing of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 82, 339-352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes, V.D.: 2005, ‘Dealing with a Global Issue: Contributing to Poverty Alleviation’, Corporate Governance - The International Journal of Business in Society 5(3), 61-69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M-L.: 2006, ‘Corporate Social Performance, Corporate Financial Performance and Firm Size: A Meta-Analysis’, The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge 8(1), 163-171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A. and G.G. Bell: 2005, ‘Benefiting from Network Position: Firm Capabilities, Structural Holes, and Performance’, Strategic Management Journal 26(9), 809-825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenisek, T.J.: 1979, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Conceptualization Based on Organizational Literature’, Academy of Management Review 4(3), 359-368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Higgins, E.R. Corporations, Civil Society, and Stakeholders: An Organizational Conceptualization. J Bus Ethics 94, 157–176 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0254-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0254-2

Keywords

Navigation