Complete and Partial Organizing for Corporate Social Responsibility

Abstract

This paper investigates different modes of organizing for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on insights from organization theory, we theorize two ways to organize for CSR. ''Complete'' organization for CSR happens within businesses and depends on the availability of certain organizational elements (e.g., membership, hierarchy, rules, monitoring, and sanctioning). By contrast, ''partial'' organization for CSR happens when organizers do not have direct access to all these organizational elements. We discuss partial organization for CSR by analyzing how standards and cross-sector partnerships make selective use of organizational elements. We maintain that an important feature of the increasing institutionalization of CSR-not only within businesses but also among nongovernmental, governmental, and professional actors-is the rise of partial forms of organization. We discuss the contributions to this Special Issue in the context of our theorization of complete/partial organization for CSR and outline avenues for further research.

Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating value for business, society and the environment

“…Corporate philanthropy is a direct contribution by a corporation to a charity or cause, most often in the form of cash grants, donations and/or inkind services (Kotler and Lee 2008). This category of social responsibility is totally dictated at the "discretion" of the organization as there are no laws or codified expectations that guide the corporations' activities (Rasche et al 2013).…”

“…In a lot of countries, they're legally required to report social and environmental information. And they have to build up accounting systems to do so (Rasche et al 2013). Very often the companies' responsible management may involve designing business processes and activities in a way that they meet certain social and environmental minimum standards.…”

“Buying” Corporate Social Responsibility: Organisational Identity Orientation as a Determinant of Practice Adoption

“…Garriga and Melé 2004), attention has been shifting towards the question how CSR is in fact put into organisational practice (e.g. BaumannPauly et al 2013;Lindgreen et al 2009;Maon et al 2009;Rasche et al 2013;Wickert 2014). However, as yet little attention has been given to explaining what leads to inconsistent ''degrees of CSR seriousness'' (Aguilera et al 2007, p. 855).…”

“…We specifically theorize different processes and patterns in CSR adoption in this particular context, and in doing so we contribute to the literature on the organisational adoption and implementation of CSR (e.g. Baumann-Pauly et al 2013;Lindgreen et al 2009;Maon et al 2009;Rasche et al 2013;Wickert 2014).…”

Practice Transfer in Organizations: The Role of Governance Mode for Internal and External Fit

“…Studying practice transfer thus offers substantial opportunities to advance our understanding of governance modes, not in the sense of ownership (Brouthers and Hennart 2007) but as forms of coordinating business activities (Powell 1990). For example, Rasche et al (2013) make the observation that practices related to Corporate Social Responsibility can be organized in different ways, ranging from more 'complete' to more 'partial' organizing, whereby complete organizing involves centralized decision-making, as is typical of hierarchies, while partial organizing refers to partnerships, such as those between firms and nongovernmental organizations-arrangements which may take the form of networks (cf. Husted 2003).…”