Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
(2016),"Customer perception of CSR initiatives: its antecedents and consequences", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12
Iss 2 pp. 263-279 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2015-0056
(2014),"CSR in Developing Countries through an Institutional Lens", Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility,
Governance and Sustainability, Vol. 8 pp. 21-44 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2043-905920140000008005
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:158521 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
company to achieve its full development and correspondingly forecasting which initiatives hold the
Professor at Department
greatest contribution toward this end.
of Social Sciences,
Design/methodology/approach This paper sets out a conceptual framework, which was drafted
School of Economics and
building on an extensive critical review of the literature seeking to incorporate the diverse contributions
Management, University made by the existing CSR models and classifications.
of Lisbon, Lisbon, Findings The analytical framework here proposed enables a wide reaching approach to analyzing
Portugal. strategic CSR, their underlying motivations and its core factors. It also extends to considering the
different phases of maturity enabling the evaluation of the distinctive levels of CSR integration into the
company strategy and the stage at which the company currently stands at on its determined path.
Practical implications From a practical perspective, the suggested framework enables practitioners
to access a practical tool that specifically measures their companies CSR maturity and strategic profile
and which may serve as well as a means of diagnosis, improvement or of adaptation.
Originality/value This model of analysis generates the identification of the factors explaining the
different levels of CSR integration into the company strategy and evaluating the level of maturity
prevailing.
Keywords CSR, Business-CSR integration, CSR maturity, CSR strategy
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) research has represented one of the key strands of
research into organizational management in recent decades (Gond and Matten, 2007;
Walsh et al., 2003). This has brought about a change in the paradigm of study for the
relationship between the economy, society and the natural environment. The growing
pressure from stakeholders for companies to take into consideration the full extent of their
impacts has led to a shift in management paradigms reflected in the greater integration of
both market and non-market logics (Baron, 2001). The long-term success of companies,
and their capacity to generate value, is now perceived as influenced by the capacity they
display for acting responsibly, respecting all stakeholders and the natural environment
(Pedrini and Ferri, 2011; Parmar et al., 2010; Philips et al., 2003; Maak and Pless, 2006;
Wood and Logsdon, 2002; Hambrick and Chen, 2008). The core rationale to CSR is no
longer questioned, with the debates instead focusing on the characteristics of the
best-integrated CSR models (advancing different forms of value) capable to meet the
plurality of existing demands (Orlizsky et al., 2011; Kurucz et al., 2008; Maon et al., 2010).
Received 21 April 2015
Revised 4 November 2015
While CSR tends to assume an increasingly strategic integration, there have only been a
Accepted 5 November 2015 few studies analyzing just why organizations report different levels of CSR. Thus, there is a
DOI 10.1108/SRJ-04-2015-0055 VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016, pp. 363-381, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 363
need to deepen knowledge on the drivers and rationale of CSR behavior, on which factors
condition the level of firm CSR integration and the alignment between business strategy
and its CSR counterpart.
Strategic CSR contemplates the existence of convergence between the social,
environmental and economic benefits produced by a firm and attained through social and
environmental investments in the key factors of success within the respective competitive
context, thereby fostering a competitive advantage: a set of activities that are
simultaneously good for the company and for the society, thus improving companys
performance and creating social value (Carroll, 2001; Marsden et al., 2001; Porter and
Kramer, 2006).
Husted and Allen (2001, p. 3) suggest that CSR strategies are plans, investments and
actions put into practice by a company within the scope of attaining sustained competitive
advantages and, simultaneously, better social and economic performances. We here
consider social value as that which is added by a company and not to the exclusive benefit
of its shareholders, boosting the companys level of competitiveness while simultaneously
building up the economic and social conditions of the communities in which they operate
(Porter and Kramer, 2006). This idea of social value distances itself from the strictly
economic perception of value as a mere immediate or future financial gain for
shareholders.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)
The objectives of this article are to devise a typology of CSR strategies able to:
distinguish between companies by identifying different CSR integration strategies used
by them according to the factors that are more crucial to their strategic approach to
CSR;
assess the level of CSR maturity of a company according to the degree of depth with
which CSR is integrated in the business operations; and
identify the state of development in each company en route to fully integrating
CSR-related concerns into the company strategy.
The final aim of this conceptual article (Callahan, 2010; Van Maanen et al., 2007) is to
propose a matrix able to gauge the level of a companys CSR integration. To achieve this
goal, we have followed a two-step process. First, we present a taxonomy of CSR models,
which was drafted building on a critical review of the literature seeking to incorporate the
contributions made by existing CSR models and classifications. Its outcome is a structured
classification (a meta-model) of three model types:
1. ideological models (those deriving from the analysis of the set of values, ideological
profiles and cultural traits underlying corporate decision-making which have a
determinant role in the relationship between companies and societies);
2. procedural models (resulting from studying the types of processes, structures and
practices actually implemented by companies, either in terms of the responses to
external stakeholders pressures, the structure of the management practices in place or
the exercise of corporate citizenship); and
3. consequentialist models (those focused upon the identification of the types of benefits
and impacts of actions taken by organizations, aimed at creating or appropriating
socially added value).
Second, this meta-model feed into the formulation of an analytical framework enabling the
study of strategic CSR by dividing integration strategies into three categories, namely,
those driven by: ideological forces; procedural forces; and produced impacts.
Despite the relevance of the theme, there are however few theoretical approaches to this
domain and with empirical studies on the issue of CSR strategic maturity still rarer in
number. This article makes an innovative contribution to the study and implementation of
Ideological Focused on values and Reidenbach and Robin (1991), Analysis of the relationship between
ideology Sridhar and Camburn (1993), companies and societies based
Frederick (1986, 1994), upon the prevailing values. CSR is
Logsdon and Yuthas (1997), mostly integrated by triggering,
Van Marrewijk (2003, 2004), maintaining and sharing a set of
Wheeler et al. (2003), Jones core dominant values
et al. (2007), Spitzeck (2009),
Maon et al. (2010)
Procedural Focused on specific processes Carroll (1979), Clarkson (1991, Companies integrate CSR through
and responses given by the 1995), Burke and Logsdon practice and the implementation of
management (1996), Hillman and Keim specific tools. Analysis of the CSR
(2001), Munilla and Miles policies, structures, processes and
(2005), RARE (2005), Hahn actions, firms implement
and Scheermesser (2005),
Mirvis and Googins (2006,
2010), Zadek (2004, 2005),
Halme (2007), Avastone
Consulting (2007), Bondy
(2008), MIT Sloan Management
Review and The Boston
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)
through the lenses of its results, to be obtained in corporate and social lives, and
companies are thought to make decisions bearing in mind the kind of effects to be
obtained.
The meta-model of analysis enables to see the CSR strategic integration profile a company
might have according to the preferred modes of intervention in terms of CSR and the
favored integration strategic driver.
Building on this thinking, Jones et al. (2007) proposed as well five categories of stakeholder
cultures in companies, deriving from their ethical assumptions that range from
self-concern, to concern about others.
1. CSR in a strict sense, that assumes the incorporation of socially responsible behaviors
into companies operations, processes and decision-making (built in, strategic CSR).
2. CSR in a more latent sense, spanning that social involvement that reaches beyond the
immediate business activities (bolt-on, non-strategic CSR).
aimed at creating or appropriating socially added value from CSR. The expected
consequences are the driving forces, and not so much attention is given to other factors.
Porter and Kramer (2006) distinguish between responsive and strategic CSR and Husted
and Allen (2007, 2011) proposal is in this sense similar. The latter analyze companies
based on the concept of value creation and discriminate between those that are altruistic,
co-opted egoists and strategic. Jones (2008) similarly bases his approach on types of
impact (positive and negative) existing to the company and to the society. Jones (2008)
takes into account the cross-referencing of the impact on the company and the
repercussions for the society and discriminates between pathologies, public goods, social
irresponsibility and the enlightened self-interest. Finally, Quazi and OBrien (2000)
propose a bi-dimensional model: the scope of responsibility and perceptions of the
consequences of companies social actions, resulting in four types of CSR: modern,
socioeconomic, philanthropic and classical.
1. to identify the company type in accordance with the various different analytical criteria
(and the grand strategy used); and
2. to identify the phase of development each company has attained.
more than 30-stage models available in the literature. Subsequently, we sought to organize
these various approaches in accordance with the main stages or steps put forward by the
authors. A preliminary conclusion we reached, as mentioned before, was that authors
classify CSR maturity according to two different conceptual macro-structures:
linear-evolutionary models and discrete models. We furthermore found that irrespective of
the macro-structure applied to categorize CSR maturity development, the various models
coincide on the idea that under certain circumstances CSR is susceptible to strategic
integration. The comparison between the various existing models in the literature (taking
into consideration their structural characteristics) led us to conclude for the existence of
certain identifiable patterns among them. We then scrutinized the result of such
comparison through the lenses of our previously defined meta-model of analysis
of companies CSR integration strategies and its three-dimensional architecture to generate
clearly autonomous and distinguishable categories. The result of such process is an
integrative continuum presented as a six-stage (archetypical) classification of CSR maturity
development.
The negation stage reflects a closed mindset and an opposition to the concept of CSR, to
which no value is recognized. There is no organizational interest in contextual issues, and
the relationships with stakeholders are sporadic and utilitarian. Senior management does
not show any interest in CSR, as business philosophy is led by profit. Investments in CSR
are marginal and driven by external pressures or due to legally stipulated obligations as
such investments are considered to be useless. CSR is not considered strategic being
thought as not bringing any competitive advantage or nurturing any meaningful business or
social value. Therefore, there are no CSR structures and policies in place.
Companies in the observance stage believe they fulfill their responsibilities toward societies
by simply performing their normal activities (employment, taxation, profits). Firms reveal a
defensive perspective toward the surrounding environment privileging a unilateral
relationship with stakeholders. CSR-related investments come about for forced external
reasons and to protect fundamental company functions. CSR maybe adopted by the
company leadership as a rhetorical mechanism. When existing, the value created by CSR
is above all to the company and with such practices only taking place in the company to
observe rules, norms and patterns of conduct enacted in the community and that imply
some strictly necessary investment in tools and their formal implementation. There is a low
alignment between CSR and the company strategy.
In the horizontal, we have explored precisely the level of integration between business
activities and CSR. On this axis, we take our previous research conclusions into
consideration and propose three distinct dimensions to describe the strategic CSR maturity
profile a company has and to analyze CSR activation in a company:
The procedural dimension focuses on the strategy and processes put into practice within
the scope of CSR management. The impact of CSR also strongly depends on the position
it occupies within strategic and operational management processes. We consider three
variables in here: CSR leadership; CSR strategic alignment; and the instruments and the
level of processes formalization.
The first variable questions precisely the position of organizations top managers toward
CSR, which may adopt different styles. What kind of involvement senior managers do have
in the companys CSR dynamics? Company leadership proves one of the factors
repeatedly identified as essential to adopting a CSR-oriented management philosophy.
CSR performance is considered to be determined by the involvement, capacity for
mobilization, support, promotion and control displayed by the company leadership.
Furthermore, the leadership may be displaced, absent, distant or non-committed to the
concept and practice of CSR or, on the contrary, may be its driver and foreseeing future
developments. The leadership position taken on CSR greatly conditions the scope for its
success within the organization. This variable cannot be confounded with the underlying
values held by a company or embraced by leaders.
CSR strategic alignment means the existing level of interconnectedness between the CSR
strategy (CSRS) and the company strategy (CS). The existence of a CSRS that is adapted
to the CS represents an important factor to its consolidation and is an indicator of its
capacity to obtain results whether for the society or for the company. The idea of an
alignment between these different strategic levels reflects in the proximity and mutual
identification between the CSR targets and priorities attributed at the company level. The
greater the level of integration across these two strategic levels, the closer the strategic
clusters of these two levels prove proximate and consequently generating higher levels of
synergies. This variable strives to convey the differing degrees of alignment that may exist
between the different strategic levels.
The CSR formalization and instruments variable involves the analysis of structures and of
the ongoing CSR-related procedures within the company. The development of CSR
activities depends on how they are internally managed and integrated into business
practices. The allocation of human, financial and material resources to these activities
represents different levels of implementation. As such, the design of the instruments and
structures adopted enable the identification of various levels of formalization within a
company. Here, we account for the different levels of formalization existing in organizations
entity, toward the sustainability of a specific region. Sustainable value is added if resources
are used in a more efficient way than by a benchmark (defined by the analyst). This variable
aims at determining the value created by the use of resources by comparing the profitability
of alternative uses of these resources (opportunity costs).
The carbon footprint is a measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide and methane
emissions of a defined population, system or activity, considering all relevant sources,
sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of the population, system or
activity of interest (Wright et al., 2011, p. 63). A way of analyzing a firms environmental
impact is to calculate its carbon footprint and compare it with a relevant benchmark (the
national economy) controlling for the particularities of the specific industry.
Finally, Baldwin (2006, p. 3) says, the term organizational justice refers to the extent to
which employees perceive workplace procedures, interactions and outcomes to be fair in
nature. A way of assessing the impact of CSR strategies is evaluating their impacts in
terms of the organizational population. Some indicators are particularly keen in showing the
importance and relevance CSRs consequences have to organizational leadership and
how ornamental CSR integration is in a company. Inequality of payment for men and
women doing the same job or wage disparity are some of the consequences a wrongly
formulated CSR policy may have. They are violations of organizational justice, which may
suggest negative impacts in the society and may be signs of the irrelevance of CSR for a
company. How better a company performs and how socially relevant the consequences of
their CSR strategies are, the more significant impacts are for a company and the more
important they become in the entire corporates CSR edifice. It is our belief that
organizational justice depicts the adequate features to act as an explanative indicator of a
companys CSR integration.
As a first step, we set out the literature review on the diverse models for the categorization
of CSR strategic integration, which were organized in accordance with the main analytical
vector applied by the authors along with the key factors taken into consideration by them.
We then present a segmentation (a meta-model) individualizing three model types:
ideological; procedural; and consequentialist, which may be seen as a typology of three
different CSR integration grand strategies.
Second, hinged on these conceptual assumptions, we put forward an integrative
framework responding to both theoretical and practical needs in terms of the CSR field.
Culture and
values
Position
regarding
Obedience stakeholders
CSR leadership
Strategic CSR
Innovation formalization
Strategic
Integration
Sustainability
Value added
Transformation Consequentialist:
consequences, benefits Carbon footprint
and impacts efficiency
Organizational
Justice
1. the culture and values conditioning actions within the scope of strategic CSR;
2. the management processes implemented and their level of formal integration into the
respective business management context; and
3. the generated impacts of CSR targeted actions and the resulting creation of value.
One of the major contributions of this conceptual article is precisely the framework it puts
forward to characterize the levels of CSR maturity and to identify the driving forces of CSR
integration in a firm. It enables the analysis and assessment of the integration strategy
favored by a company, its strategic CSR profile and level of maturity ranked against a
comparison of its competitors. Additionally, it provides a systematization method to the
existing relationships between CSR maturity and CSR integration of a firm, therefore
providing an additional tool to empirical research in these subject areas. It considers the
different characteristic features of CSR aggregated into three dimensions, broken down
into nine items of analysis and spanning six different stages of CSR company development.
This clarification also brings together a previously considered disparity between
linear-evolutionary models and discrete models.
By transforming the framework into a specific practical instrument, it may serve as a tool for
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)
diagnosis and adapting within the context of enhancing a companys ability to leverage
CSR as a fundamental strategic strength that works out as a competitive advantage while
creating social value. This may also facilitate forecasting just which CSR initiatives hold the
greatest viability and probability of contributing toward organizational development and
success. A company, which recognizes that according to the model, is presently in a
certain stage of development and preferring a specific dimension of CSR integration may
decide to adjust and trigger adaptive measures to move to a more adequate position.
Figure 2 exemplifies a case in which a company being in a certain situation (A) in the
between stages, as we have suggested earlier, are represented by dotted lines to signify
the volatility of CSR development and maturity. Each stage in the framework is an
archetypical position, which is contingent on the internal alignment of the mentioned
variables. Being the development of CSR an ongoing process, it is conceivable then that
at certain maturity stage, an organization may present qualities typical from other stages of
development. This means the situation the organization is going through is characterized
dominantly by a certain arrangement of features specific from a specific stage, but some
aspects of the CSR conception and practice may nevertheless require further attention,
investment and alignment to get the most out of each full-fledged stage of development.
This article, therefore, presents several originalities to the field of CSR research and reveals
theoretical and practical utility. Theoretically, it provides a multidisciplinary, comprehensive
and integrative approach, capable of embracing research that was fragmented till now.
Practically, it delivers a model which can be applied by managers to:
identify a companys strategic CSR maturity;
compare a companys CSR profile with others;
identify drivers of a companys CSR integration; and
identify measures to improve strategic CSR maturity in the company.
Furthermore, this framework can be used in the operationalization of more holistic future
studies in this area. From this integrated perspective, future research could compare
different types of industries, regions, companies and initiatives and, therefore, understand
the range of individual, organizational, social, political, economic or institutional factors
which have an impact on CSR maturity and CSR development. It might be used to
understand complex multi-level determinant factors of CSR strategy and the mechanisms
and foundations of internal and external CSR alignment. This model could in the future be
used as well to research the factors driving different approaches to CSR strategy and which
combinations of factors return more successful levels of strategy formulation and
implementation.
By stating the features of a strategic state, our model provides a more firmly grounded
insight into the integration and alignment between the companys business strategy and its
CSR strategy, shedding some additional light on the characteristics of CSR
strategy-making and execution. The conceptual model proposed, thus, contains both
References
Alcaiz, E.B., Herrera, A.A., Prez, R.C. and Alcami, J.J.R. (2010), Latest evolution of academic
research in corporate social responsibility: an empirical analysis, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 332-344.
Avastone Consulting (2007), Mindsets in Action: Leadership and the Corporate Sustainability
Challenge, Atlanta.
Baldwin, S. (2006), Organisational Justice, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton, available at:
www.employment-studies co uk (accessed 17 November 2014).
Baron, D.P. (2001), Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy, Journal
of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-45.
Bondy, K. (2008), Institutions and agency in CSR strategy: an empirical investigation of development
and implementation, Unpublished PhD thesis, available at http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/586/1/
Institutions_and_Agency_in_CSR_Strategy_-_Final_-_pdf (accessed 20 April 2013).
Burke, L. and J. Logsdon (1996), How corporate social responsibility pays off, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 495-502.
conceptual and theory articles, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 300-304.
Carroll, A. (2001), Models of management morality for the new millennium, Business Ethics Quarterly,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 365-371.
Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D. and Olsen, S. (2004), Double bottom line project report:
assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures, Methods Catalog, available at: www.shidler.
hawaii.edu/Portals/1/resources/DoubleBottomLine.pdf (accessed 17 November 2014).
Clarkson, M. (1991), Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: the
stakeholder management model, in Fredrick, W. (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and
Policy, JAI Press, Greenwich.
Clarkson, M. (1995), A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A. and Benn, S. (2003), Organisational Change for Corporate Sustainability,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Figge, F. and Hahn, T. (2004), Sustainable value added measuring corporate contributions to
sustainability beyond eco-efficiency, Ecological Economics, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 173-187.
Frederick, W. (1986), Toward CSR3: why ethical analysis is indispensable and unavoidable in
corporate affairs, CA Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 126-141.
Frederick, W. (1994), From CSR1 to CSR2: the maturing of business-and-society thought, Business
and Society, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 150-164.
Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., Giuseppe Scaratti, G. and Kaneklin, C. (2014), Building social sustainability:
multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 685-701.
Garriga, E. and Mel, D. (2004), Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 51-71.
Gond, J. and Matten, D. (2007), Rethinking the business-society interface: beyond the functionalist
trap, ICCSR Research Paper Series No. 47-2007, ISSN 1479-5124, International Centre for Corporate
Social Responsibility Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham University, Nottingham.
Hambrick, D. and Chen, M. (2008), New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements:
the case of strategic management, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 32-54.
Hillman, A. and Keim, G. (2001), Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues:
whats the bottom line?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 125-139.
Husted, B. and Allen, D. (2001), Toward a model of corporate social strategy formulation, paper
presented at the Social Issues in Management Division, Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
Husted, B. and Allen, D. (2007), Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among
large firms: lessons from the Spanish experience, Long Range Planning, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 594-610.
Husted, B. and Allen, D. (2011), Corporate Social Strategy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Jones, M. (2008), Disrobing the emperor: mainstream CSR research and corporate hegemony,
Working Paper, Ashridge Business School and Maastricht School of Management, Berkhamsted.
Jones, T., Felps, W. and Bigley, G. (2007), Ethical theory and stakeholder related decisions: the role
of stakeholder culture, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 137-155.
Kurucz, E., Colbert, B. and Wheeler, D. (2008), The business case for corporate social responsibility,
in Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)
Lee, K.H. and Kim, J.W. (2011), Integrating suppliers into green product innovation development: an
empirical case study in the semiconductor industry, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20
No. 8, pp. 527-538.
Liu, X., Yang, J., Qu, S., Wang, L., Shishime, T. and Bao, C. (2012), Sustainable production: practices
and determinant factors of green supply chain management of Chinese companies, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Logsdon, J.M. and Yuthas, K. (1997), Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, and
organizational moral development, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 Nos 12/13, pp. 1213-1226.
Maas, K. (2009), Corporate social performance: from output measurement to impact measurement,
Unpublished doctoral thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, available at: www.erim.eur.nl
(accessed 17 November 2014).
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010), Oganizational stages and cultural phases: a critical
review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development, International Journal
of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-38.
Margolis, J. and Walsh, J. (2003), Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp. 268-305.
Marsden, T., Renting, H., Banks, J. and van der Ploeg, J. (2001), The road towards sustainable
agricultural and rural development: issues of theory, policy and research practice, Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 75-83.
Mirvis, P. and Googins, B. (2006), Stages of corporate citizenship, CA Management Review, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 103-126.
Mirvis, P. and Googins, B. (2010), Moving to Next Generation Corporate Citizenship, Centrum fr
Corporate Citizenship Deutschland, Deutschland, available at: www.cccdeutschland.org (accessed
17 November 2014).
MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group (2009), The business of
sustainability, findings and insights from the first annual business of sustainability survey and the
global thought leaders research project, MIT Sloan Management Review Special Report, available at:
www.ideiasustentavel.com.br/pdf/mitsloan_sr2009-dl.pdf (accessed 25 May 2013).
MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group (2011), Report on the 2010
sustainability and innovation global executive study and research project, available at: http://
pubservice.com/msstore/ProductDetails.aspx?CPC52380 (accessed on 24 May 2013).
Munilla, L. and Miles, M. (2005), The corporate social responsibility continuum as a component of
stakeholder theory, Business and Society Review, Vol. 110 No. 4, pp. 371-387.
Orlitzky, M., Shmidt, F. and Rynes, S. (2003), Corporate social and financial performance: a
meta-analysis, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 403-441.
Orlizsky, M., Siegel, D. and Waldman, D. (2011), Strategic corporate social responsibility and
environmental sustainability, Business & SocietyVol. 50 No. 1, pp. 6-27.
Parmar, B., Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Purnell, L. and Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder theory:
the state of the art, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 403-445.
Pedrini, M. and Ferri, L. (2011), Implementing corporate social responsibility: an exploratory study of
strategy integration and CSR officers duty, Economia Aziendale Online, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 175-187.
Philips, R., Freeman, E. and Wicks, A. (2003), What stakeholder theory is not, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 479-502.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2006), Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011), Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism and unleas a
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)
Quazi, A. and OBrien, D. (2000), An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social
responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
RARE (2005), Corporate social responsibility: integrating a business and societal governance
perspective, The RARE Projects Approach, available at: www.rare-eu.net (accessed 20 May 2013).
Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. (1991), A conceptual model of corporate moral development,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 273-284.
Secchi, D. (2007), Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 347-373.
Seuring, S. and Mler, M. (2008), From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
supply chain management, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1699-1710.
Sridhar, B.S. and Camburn, A. (1993), Stages of moral development of corporations, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 727-739.
Ting, H.W., Ramasamy, B. and Ging, L.C. (2010), Management systems and the CSR engagement,
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 362-373.
UN Global Compact (2013), The Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2013, New York, NY.
Van Maanen, J., Sorenson, J.B. and Mitchell, T.R. (2007), The interplay between theory and method,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1145-1155.
van Marewijk, M. (2003), Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between
agency and communication, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 Nos 2/3, pp. 95-105.
van Marrewijk, M. (2004), A value based approach to organization types: towards a coherent set of
stakeholder-oriented management tools, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 147-158.
van Marrewijk, M., Wuisman, I., de Cleyn, W., Timmers, J., Panapanaan, V. and Linnanen, L. (2004),
A phase-wise development approach to business excellence: towards an innovative,
stakeholder-oriented assessment tool for organizational excellence and CSR, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 83-98.
Waddock, S. and Graves, S. (1997), The corporate social performance: financial performance link,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 303-319.
Wheeler, D., Colbert, B.A. and Freeman, R.E. (2003), Focusing on value: reconciling corporate social
responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1-28.
Wood, D. and Logsdon, J. (2002), Business citizenship: from domestic to global level of analysis,
Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 155-188.
Wright, L., Kemp, S. and Williams, I. (2011), Carbon footprinting: towards a universally accepted
definition, Carbon Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 61-72.
Zadek, S. (2004), Paths to corporate responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 12,
pp. 125-132.
Zadek, S. (2005), Aligning Corporate Responsibility to Strategies for Business and National
Competitiveness, Instituto Ethos, Santa Quiteria, available at: www1.ethos.org.br/EthosWeb/arquivo/
0-A-d6eReflexao14.pdf (accessed 18 May 2013).
Further reading
Herrera, A., Alcaiz, E. and Prez, R. (2011), Perspectivas tericas usadas para el estudio de la
responsabilidad social empresarial: una clasificacin con base en su racionalidade, Estudios
Gerenciales, Vol. 27 No. 118, pp. 115-137.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)
Corresponding author
Maria Joo Santos can be contacted at: mjsantos@iseg.utl.pt
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
1. 2016. The factors that really drive CSR integration. Strategic Direction 32:10, 27-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)