Deconstructing Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights From Legal and Economic Theory

Researching Corporate Social Responsibility: An Agenda for the 21st Century

“…Further, the unique social benefits, or costs, of particular actions by firms on discrete stakeholders get lost when these activities are aggregated in more global measures. We argue that a strong first step in advancing (Friedman, 1970;Riech, 1998;McWilliams and Siegel, 2001) • Law (Buffett, 1997 (cited in (Gillmor, 1999); Ostas, 2001) • Accounting (Gray et al, 1996) • Management (General) (Bellah et al, 1985;Margolis and Walsh, 2003) Management (Business & Society) (Waddock, 2001;Logsdon and Wood, 2002;Wood and Logsdon, 2002) • Finance (Guerard, 1997) • Marketing (causerelated marketing) (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988;Drumright, 1996;Mohr et al, 2001;Deshpande and Hithon, 2002) • Economics (Frank, 1996;Jenson, 2002) •…”

The effect of culture on consumers' willingness to punish irresponsible corporate behaviour: applying Hofstede's typology to the punishment aspect of corporate social responsibility

“…The integrating social demands models deal with issues management (Ackerman 1973, Sethi 1975, Jones 1980, Vogel 1986, with public responsibility where law and existing public policy form the framework for social performance (Preston & Post 1975, 1981, Ostas 2001, balancing stakeholder interests through stakeholder engagement (Mitchell et al 1997, Rowley 1997, Agle & Mitchell 1999, and social legitimisation through corporate social performance where companies seek social legitimacy through processes that provide appropriate responses to issues (Carroll 1979, Wartick & Cochran 1985, Wood 1991, Kang & Wood 1995, Swanson 1995, Carroll 1998). An extension of this approach looks at the outcomes and meeting responsibilities, as opposed to the responsibilities themselves (Maignan et al 1999, Davenport 2000, Maignan & Ferrell 2000, 2001. As a result the scope of CSR is wider, including ideas like sustainability (Marsden 2000), business as stewards (Reilly & Kyj 1994), drawing closer to the stakeholder approach (Blair 1996, Andriof & McIntosh 2001b.…”

“…There also appears to be wide variation in how firms communicate CSR activities (Maignan & Ralston 2002) or in how different attitudes to CSR affect foreign direct investment decisions (Stanley 1990). Most of these studies focus on managers as survey subjects usually within one country or within one cultural group (Maignan et al 1999, Maignan & Ferrell 2000, 2001. As a result, there has been very little attempt to reconcile the various approaches to CSR with the institutional and cultural issues and practices facing managers of multinational companies operating in more than one country.…”

Social Enterprise, Corporate Objectives, and the Corporate Governance Narrative

“…Indeed, many existing companies already do so . Likewise, we do not believe or argue that the aims of social enterprise are necessarily inimical to maximizing value for shareholders . However, that does not mean that the objective of shareholder wealth maximization is ideal for all for‐profit corporations, particularly many of those that pursue a social enterprise strategy.…”