Corporate social irresponsibility: What we know and what we need to know

Abstract

Corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) is a critical issue for managers and researchers. In fact, the number of studies on this subject from diverse literature is rapidly increasing, seeking to answer questions regarding the core elements of CSI, its antecedents, and consequences. This paper offers a comprehensive literature review of this topic, identifying and assessing previous studies, synthesizing their findings, and highlighting knowledge gaps. Additionally, it offers recommendations regarding how to move forward. Our review identified 155 studies published from 1962 to 2020 that describe the antecedents, outcomes, mediators, and moderators of CSI according to different levels of analysis. We contribute to the social issues in management literature in that we analyze the facilitators and inhibitors of CSI and the consequences for firms using a multilevel approach. Finally, we provide guidance for future research by assessing the core elements that define the level of irresponsibility-harm to others and intentionality.

Corporate governance perspective on environmental reporting: Literature review and future research agenda

“…Accordingly, we aim to add to the ongoing debate (Enciso-Alfaro & García-Sánchez, 2022; Iborra & Riera, 2022;Mio et al, 2022) and complement prior literature by conducting a systematic review of 173 published papers. In adopting the regime of the systematic literature review suggested by Aguilera et al (2021), our analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.…”

“…Since the decision to disclose environmental information is not directly influenced by a firm's broader social and governance disclosure attitudes (Broadstock et al, 2018), there is a need to examine the determinants of environmental reporting in isolation from other dimensions of sustainability disclosure. Accordingly, we aim to add to the ongoing debate (Enciso‐Alfaro & García‐Sánchez, 2022; Iborra & Riera, 2022; Mio et al, 2022) and complement prior literature by conducting a systematic review of 173 published papers. In adopting the regime of the systematic literature review suggested by Aguilera et al (2021), our analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.…”

Looking at the darker side of the mirror: the impact of CEO's narcissism on corporate social irresponsibility

“…In respect to CSI, we add new evidence to the underdeveloped line of research that links individual level antecedents with CSI behaviors (Grijalva and Harms, 2014;Iborra and Riera, 2023). By focusing on the individual level instead of on institutional variables, we respond to the call made by Ghoshal (2005) that CEOs are not free from moral or ethical responsibility for their actions and, as shown, we have found empirical support for this argument.…”

“…corporate acts that intentionally cause harm (Clark et al, 2022;Kemp and Owen, 2022) -has relevant social, environmental and economic consequences impacting companies, communities and people worldwide. As Iborra and Riera (2023) state, there is empirical evidence that CSI provoked enormous consequences, between others, in CEO's narcissism and irresponsible behavior consumers-in emotions, attitudes or purchase intentions-(e.g. Antonetti, 2020;Valor et al, 2022), in firms' financial performance as well as in firms' reputation, trustworthiness and moral capital (e.g.…”

“…Our study makes several contributions to the research on CSI antecedents by investigating the role played by upper echelons in this type of behavior. In respect to CSI growing research, we help to fill an underdeveloped line of research that links individual level EJMBE antecedents with CSI behaviors (Iborra and Riera, 2023;Grijalva and Harms, 2014). By focusing on the individual level instead of on institutional variables, we respond to the call made by Ghoshal (2005, p. 79): "when managers, including CEOs, justify their actions by pleading powerlessness in the face of external forces, it is to the dehumanization of practice that they resort.…”