Organizational Stages and Cultural Phases: A Critical Review and a Consolidative Model of Corporate Social Responsibility Development

Abstract

Based on a stakeholder-oriented conceptualization of corporate social responsibility (CSR), this paper offers a multi-dimensional, dynamic perspective which integrates moral, cultural and strategic aspects of the CSR development process, together with its organizational implications. Therefore, the authors link existing stage models of CSR development with stakeholder culture and social responsiveness continuums and provide a consolidative model which highlights a seven-stage development process towards CSR, articulated around three cultural phases (i.e. CSR reluctance, CSR grasp and CSR embedment). In a context in which literature on CSR development and implementation tends to be overly segmented, this consolidative model integrates organizational values and culture together with management processes and operations. In its emphasis on the importance of the organizational context and characteristics in analyses of organizations' CSR development, the proposed consolidative model offers novel research perspectives and highlights the relevance of adopting a phase-dependent approach.In the last few years, companies have begun to move beyond traditional philanthropy and basic compliance into a new kind of corporate and social responsibility.

Developing CSR Giving as a Dynamic Capability for Salient Stakeholder Management

“…Supporting (Maon et al 2010), who provide a framework showing the evolution of CSR culture and implementation, we found that CSR giving involved having a corporate strategy, corporate commitment, the correct people to lead and develop the processes, and 'buy-in' and respect for the process throughout the organization, technology to capture and report information enable automation of support processes such as direct employee donations from wages and gift matching etc. All of this takes corporate resources, the least of which are corporate dollars.…”

“…Carroll and Buchholtz 2000;Maon et al 2010). It is the most commonly used theoretical framework for evaluating CSR (McWilliams and Siegel 2001), and has been discussed in that context for many years.…”

“…This paper contends that the development of the role of the CSR implementation manager can give life to the various frameworks for implementing CSR (c.f. Maignan et al 2005;O'Riordan and Fairbrass 2008;Maon et al 2008Maon et al , 2009Maon et al , 2010. In the literature to date little is known about the role of the giving manager or the critical role of the CSR implementation manager and 'CSR design and implementation processes remain largely unexplored' (Maon et al 2009, p. 71).…”

Corporate Social Responsibility in Challenging and Non-enabling Institutional Contexts: Do Institutional Voids matter?

“…At the organizational level, CSR has been found to be driven by a myriad of factors including organizational innovation (Asongu, 2007;Hull and Rothenberg, 2008;Porter and Kramer, 2002), culture (Bansal, 2003;Maon, Lindgreen, and Swaen, 2010;Aguinis and Glavas 2012), 8 size and ownership (Gallo and Christensen, 2011), financial strength (Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes, 2003;Campbell, 2007) (Matten and Moon, 2008:407 -emphasis ours), hence the variation of CSR across countries and institutional contexts (Chapple and Moon, 2005;Campbell, 2007;Kim et al, 2013;Amaeshi and Amao, 2009;Jamali and Neville, 2011) 8 .…”

Multi-criteria decision methods for CSR management – literature review

“…The second is that Anna Doś these responsibilities apply not only to shareholders but also to a broader group of stakeholders (Freeman, 1984). In their in-depth analysis of CSR definitions, Maon et al (2010) observed that the nature of CSR commitment can differ from a voluntary practice to a moral obligation for the company and that different CSR definitions reflect different kinds of considered stakeholders (internal stakeholders, external stakeholders, or the overall society).…”