The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Organizational Studies

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Exploring the Substance and Stakeholder Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility: An Expansion of Carroll's Discretionary Expectations


Affiliations
1 Utah State University, United States
2 University of Oregon, United States
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


The research seeks to contribute to a more specific operationalization and measurement of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) construct as traditionally defined in the literature. In particular, we explore the expansion of Carroll's (1979; 2008) seminal "philanthropic/discretionary" category of social responsibilities to include broader environmental, human rights and stakeholder interests. A new multi-dimensional scale is proposed and tested. The efficacy of this scale is examined by measuring CSR perceptions among a young college educated population at multiple levels of analysis. Internationally, we look at the CSR orientations of students in the United States and China. Within the United States, we focus on the states of Utah and Oregon. Our findings suggest that dominant existing frameworks could be improved through greater specification of substantive issues areas and stakeholder interests. Findings also suggest single level analyses may ignore important variation in CSR perceptions across geographical/cultural boundaries. In particular, significant subnational (within country) variation in attitudes and perspectives exist. Future research should include not only refinement of the scale introduced in this paper, but additional testing to determine whether the underlying measurement model holds and has explanatory power.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Stakeholders, Cross-Cultural Analysis.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Aguinis, Herman and Antes Glavas. 2012. "What we Know and Don't Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda." Journal of Management 38 (4): 932-968.

  • Aupperle, Kenneth E. 1982. An Empirical Inquiry into the Social Responsibilities as Defined by Corporations: An Examination of Various Models and Relationships. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Georgia.

  • Aupperle, Kenneth E. 1984. "An empirical measure of corporate social orientation," "Research in corporate social performance and policy." 6: 27-54.

  • Aupperle, Kenneth E., Archie B. Carroll and John D. Hatfield. 1985. "An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Social Responsibility and Profitability." Academy of Management Journal. 28 (2): 446-463.

  • Bowen, Howard R. 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper and Row.

  • Burton, Brian K. Jing-Lih Farh, and W. Harvey Hegarty. 2000. "A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation: Hong Kong vs. United States Students." Teaching Business Ethics. (4): 151-167.

  • Carroll, Archie B. 1979. "A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance," Academy of Management Review. 4 (4): 407-505.

  • Carroll, Archie B. 1991. "The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Stakeholders." Business Horizons. 34: 39-48.

  • Carroll, Archie B. 2004. "Managing Ethically with Global Stakeholders: A Present and Future Challenge." Academy of Management Executive. 18 (2): 114-120.

  • Carroll, Archie B. 2008. "A History of Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Practices." The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. eds. Crane, Abigail Williams, Dirk Matten, Jeremy Moon, and Donald S. Siegel. New York: Oxford University Press: 19-46.

  • Churchill, Gilbert A. 1979. "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs." Journal of Marketing Research (16): 64-73.

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

  • Crane, Andrew, Dirk Matten and Jeremy Moon. 2004. "Stakeholders as Citizens? Rethinking Rights, Participation and Democracy." Journal of Business Ethics. 53 (1-2): 107-122.

  • Crane, Andrew, Abagail McWilliams, Dirk Matten, Jeremy Moon and Donald Siegel. 2008. "Conclusion." The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, ed. A. Crane, Abigail Williams, Dirk Matten, Jeremy Moon and Donald S. Siegel. New York: Oxford University Press: 568-576.

  • Elkington, John. 1994. "Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development." California Management Review. 36, (2): 90-100.

  • European Commission. 2011. A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Brussels: 25.10.2011 COM (2011) 681.

  • Friedman, Milton. 1970. "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." New York Times Magazine. Sep. 13: at 133.

  • Garcia de los Salmones, Ma del Mar, Angel Herrero Crespo and Ignacio Rodriguez del Bosque. 2005. "Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Loyalty and Valuation of Services." Journal of Business Ethics. 61 (4): 369-385.

  • Gavin, James F. and William Maynard. 1975. "Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility." Personnel Psychology. 28 (3): 377-387.

  • Hair, Joseph F., RE Anderson, RL Tatham, WC Black. 1998. Multivariate Analysis. Englewood: Prentice Hall.

  • Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

  • Hofstede, Geert. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

  • Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values and Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Ibrahim, Nabil A. and John P. Angelidis. 1995. "The Corporate Social Responsiveness Orientation of Board Members: Are their Differences between Inside and Outside Directors?" Journal of Business Ethics. 14 (4): 405-410.

  • Kumar, Rita. David F. Murphy and Viraal Balsari. 2001. Altered images: The 2001 state of corporate responsibility in India poll. Tata Energy Research Institute.

  • Maignan, Isabelle. 2001. "Consumers' perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison." Journal of Business Ethics. 30 (1): 57-72.

  • Maignan, Isabelle and O.C. Ferrell, "Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 32 (1): 3-19.

  • Maignan, Isabelle and David. A. Ralston. 2002. "Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses' Self-Presentations." Journal of International Business Studies. 33 (3): 497-514.

  • Maignan, Isabelle, O.C. Ferrell and Linda Ferrell. 2005. "A Stakeholder Model for Implementing Social Responsibility in Marketing." European Journal of Marketing. 39 (9/10): 956-977.

  • Matten, Dirk and Andrew Crane. 2005. "Corporate Citizenship: Toward and Extended Theoretical Conceptualization." Academy of Management Review. 30 (1): 166-179.

  • McWilliams, Abagail, Donald S. Siegel and Patrick M. Wright. 2006. "Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications." Journal of Management Studies. 43 (1): 1-18.

  • Newell, Peter. 2005. "Citizenship, Accountability and Community: The Limits of the CSR Agenda." International Affairs. 81 (3): 541-557.

  • Orpen, Christopher. 1987. "The Attitudes of United States and South African Managers to Corporate Social Responsibility." Journal of Business Ethics. 6 (2): 89-96.

  • Papsolomou-Doukakis, Ioanna and Maria Krambia-Kapardis, and M. Katsioloudes. 2005. "Corporate Social Responsibility: The Way Forward? Maybe not! A Preliminary Study in Cyprus. European Business Review, 17 (3): 263-279.

  • Petkoski, Djordjija and Nigel Twose. eds. 2003. Public Policy for Corporate Social Responsibility. World Bank Institute Series on Corporate Responsibility. Accountability, and Sustainable Competitiveness.

  • Pinkston, Tammie S. and Archie B. Carroll. 1994. "Corporate Citizenship Perspectives and Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S." Journal of Business Ethics. 13 (3): 157-169.

  • Prieto-Carron, Peter Lund-Thomsen, Anita Chan, Ana Muro and Chandra Bhushan. 2006. "Critical Perspectives on CSR and Development: What we Know, What we don't know, and what we need to know. International Affairs. 82. (5): 977-987.

  • Quazi, Ali M. and Dennis O'Brien. 2000. "An Empirical Test of a Cross-National Model of Corporate Social Responsibility." Journal of Business Ethics. 25 (1): 33-51.

  • Ramasany, Bala and Mathew Yeung. 2009. "Chinese Consumers' Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)." Journal of Business Ethics. 88: 119-132.

  • Rowley, Tim and Shawn Berman. 2000. "A brand new brand of Corporate Social Performance." Business & Society. 39 (4): 397-418.

  • Savitz, Andrew. W. and K. Weber. 2006, The Triple Bottom Line: How Today's Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success - and How You Can Too, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Singh, Jaywant, Maria del Mar Garcia de los Salmones Sanchz and Ignacio Rodriguez del Bosque. 2008. "Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility and Product Perceptions in Consumer Markets: A Cross-cultural Evaluation." Journal of Business Ethics. 80: 597-611.

  • Szamosszegi, Andrew and Cole Kyle. 2011. "An Analysis of State‐owned Enterprises and State Capitalism in China." Report prepared by Capital Trade Inc. for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Washington DC.

  • Vandello, Joseph A. and Dov Cohen. 1999. "Patterns of Individualism and Collectivism Across the United States." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (2): 279-292.

  • Waddock, Sandra. 2003. "Stakeholder Performance Implications of Corporate Responsibility." Business Performance Management. 5 (2): 114-124.

  • Waldman, David A., Mary Sully de Luque, Nathan Washburn, and Robert J. House. 2006. "Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GLOBE study of 15 countries." Journal of International Business Studies. 37: 823-37.

  • Willard, Bob. 2002, The Sustainability Advantage: Seven Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line. New Society Publishers.

  • Williams, Cynthia A. and Ruth V. Aguilera. 2008. "Corporate Social Responsibility in Comparative Perspective." The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, ed. Crane, Abigail Williams, Dirk Matten, Jeremy Moon and Donald S. Siegel. New York: Oxford University Press: 452-472.


Abstract Views: 206

PDF Views: 0




  • Exploring the Substance and Stakeholder Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility: An Expansion of Carroll's Discretionary Expectations

Abstract Views: 206  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Shannon Peterson
Utah State University, United States
Stacey Hills
Utah State University, United States
Cassidy Williams
University of Oregon, United States

Abstract


The research seeks to contribute to a more specific operationalization and measurement of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) construct as traditionally defined in the literature. In particular, we explore the expansion of Carroll's (1979; 2008) seminal "philanthropic/discretionary" category of social responsibilities to include broader environmental, human rights and stakeholder interests. A new multi-dimensional scale is proposed and tested. The efficacy of this scale is examined by measuring CSR perceptions among a young college educated population at multiple levels of analysis. Internationally, we look at the CSR orientations of students in the United States and China. Within the United States, we focus on the states of Utah and Oregon. Our findings suggest that dominant existing frameworks could be improved through greater specification of substantive issues areas and stakeholder interests. Findings also suggest single level analyses may ignore important variation in CSR perceptions across geographical/cultural boundaries. In particular, significant subnational (within country) variation in attitudes and perspectives exist. Future research should include not only refinement of the scale introduced in this paper, but additional testing to determine whether the underlying measurement model holds and has explanatory power.

Keywords


Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Stakeholders, Cross-Cultural Analysis.

References