Towards an internal change management perspective of CSR: evidence from project RESPONSE on the sources of cognitive alignment between managers and their stakeholders, and their implications for social performance

Abstract

This paper aims to juxtapose two separate perspectives on CSR in terms of their ability to explain the cognitive alignment between managers and stakeholder on what constitutes the social responsibility of the focal firm, and to explain social performance. The first perspective is the stakeholder engagement one, which has historically characterized the debate on CSR. The second one focuses on the internal change processes required to integrate CSR in the firm’s operations. We leverage on data from 427 interviews, of which 209 with managers and 219 with stakeholders of 19 multinational firms in 8 sectors, to assess (a) the extent of cognitive alignment between managers and stakeholders on the conceptualization of CSR for the relevant firm, (b) which of the two theoretical perspectives is connected with the degree of cognitive alignment, and (c) which of the two is connected with the perception of corporate social performance (CSP). The data examined shows no evidence that the degree of sophistication in stakeholder engagement practices is connected with neither the magnitude of cognitive gaps, nor the level of CSP; whereas the degree of integration in internal operations is connected with both narrower cognitive gaps and higher CSP

Executive positions involved in white‐collar crime

“…Most of the research literature stresses the importance of corporate social responsibility handled by chief executives (Basu and Palazzo, 2008;Mostovicz et al, 2009;Zollo et al, 2009). …”

Limits to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case of Gjensidige Insurance Company and Hells Angels Motorcycle Club

“…It is an internal process in the organization that leads to conscious actions externally, and that will distinguish external processes from internal processes, as well as distinguish company processes from processes of other companies, because process development started internally in the organization. Second, interactions with stakeholders and the society at large require involvement also on the part of stakeholders and the society at large in their relationships to the company (Zollo et al, 2009).…”

Stages of growth model for corporate social responsibility

“…One perspective stresses the importance of stakeholder engagement, while the other stresses the importance of internal change management. Zollo et al (2009) argue that even though the two components are part of the same definition, they each describe different types of activities. While activities related to internal change management are internal, activities related to stakeholders are external.…”

“…First, social and environment responsibility in their operations requires internal change processes to integrate the principles into business operations. Second, interactions with stakeholders require stakeholder engagement (Zollo et al, 2009). …”