Why do corporate actors engage in pro-social behaviour? A Bourdieusian perspective on corporate social responsibility

Abstract

Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu's theory of social practice, this article develops a novel approach to the study of corporate social responsibility (CSR). According to this approach, pro-social activities are conceptualized as social practices that individual managers employ in their efforts to attain social power. Whether such practices are enacted or not depends on (1) the particular features of the social field; (2) the individual managers' socially shaped dispositions and (3) their stock of different forms of capital. By combining these theoretical concepts, the Bourdieusian approach we develop highlights the interplay between the economic and non-economic motivations that underlie CSR, acknowledging influences both on the micro-and the macro-level, as well as deterministic and voluntaristic aspects of human behaviour.

Towards an Understanding of Social Responsibility Within the Church of England

“…The result in many dioceses was a rather passive response expressed in minimal levels of engagement with social responsibility issues, despite the high degree of individual autonomy enjoyed by the SR Officers. This finding strongly supports the claim of neo-institutional theory that strong institutional pressures normally leave little room to manoeuvre and allow space only for reactive responses (van Aaken et al 2013). It seems that more proactive engagement with social responsibility concerns are institutionally beyond the discretion of individuals (Meyer and Rowan 1977) simply because of the high institutional pressure to focus on more immediate concerns around mission and evangelism.…”

“…Building on the motivational analysis put forward by van Aaken et al (2013), our findings suggests that instrumental concerns for Church Growth and more immediate pragmatic organisational matters tended to crowd out strategic planning around social issues. The result in many dioceses was a rather passive response expressed in minimal levels of engagement with social responsibility issues, despite the high degree of individual autonomy enjoyed by the SR Officers.…”

“…Battilana and D'Aunno (2009) thus argue that habitus is always acquired in relationship to specific fields, which Bourdieu sees as the organisational arena within which individual ''agents confront each other, with differentiated means and ends according to their positions and dispositions in the structure of the field'' (Bourdieu 1998, p. 32). Thus, social responsibility activities are more likely to be pursued only in contexts where both the individual members of an organisation have acquired the necessary disposition through their personal reflection on social values and are operating in an organisational field which provides sufficient space for that activity to be developed (van Aaken et al 2013). If habitus thus suggests the possible set of social responsibility actions or practices available to an individual (the repertoire) the actual outcome of habitus will be determined by the constraining influences of other socialising agents operating within the same structural field (Goddard 2004).…”

A Falling of the Veils: Turning Points and Momentous Turning Points in Leadership and the Creation of CSR

“…This challenges the prevalent view that prosocial behaviour in organisations results from senior actors seeking 'symbolic capital' to increase their power (egoism), or, the macro pressures on and from the organisational context (van Aaken et al 2013), that can sometimes result in greenwashing (Banerjee 2008). We also found exploratory evidence that (M)TP events can act as a mechanism for moral cognition and may trigger CSR leadership, regardless of individuals' personal background and even though motives for CSR within the organisation may well be mixed, (Christensen et al 2014, p. 171;Di Norcia and Tigner 2000).…”

“…However, one commonality in notions of leadership is that they encompass a perspective on 'the other', whether this is in terms of employee followership, or, a wider stakeholder perspective. Indeed, for the purposes of our micro-and meso-levels of analysis of CSR leadership, the psychological concepts of prosocial (Penner et al 2005) and, conversely, antisocial behaviour, are also relevant, where an individual's prosocial behaviour can be understood as CSR in practice (Hannah et al 2011;van Aaken et al 2013). Prosocial behaviour is understood as voluntary behaviour enacted with the intention of benefiting others (Mikulincer and Shaver 2010, p. 4) and antisocial behaviour as behaviours that have hurtful effects on others (Eisenberg 2010, p. 142).…”