Search results

This paper aims to investigate whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts that are oriented toward shared value creation generate any perceptual advantages in terms of consumer product attributes evaluations compared with other types of CSR. The study also uncovers consumers’ pathways that channel the impacts of corporate associations on corporate and product evaluations and purchase intention.

This study uses a between-subjects experimental design. In all, 274 undergraduate students from a North American university participated in the 2 (low versus high corporate ability levels) × 4 (CSR types) study. The data were analyzed using the methodologies of path analysis and multiple group analysis in the context of structural equation modeling procedure.

The findings show that in the context of shared-value CSR, CSR image (i.e. consumer judgments on the moral aspect of the company) can spill over to product attributes evaluations, including perceptions of “product innovativeness” and “product social responsibility,” which, in turn, translate to purchase willingness. Meanwhile, perceived corporate trustworthiness mediates the effects of CSR image and corporate ability (CA) image on the overall corporate evaluation, which subsequently influences consumer product evaluation and purchase intention.

The research provides direct evidence showing that companies have the potential to improve their corporate brand and, in turn, their product evaluations by putting a stronger emphasis on the social responsibility components of their image and placing this at the core of their strategic agenda. Importantly, a contribution to the literature by identifying differential effects of CA image versus CSR image on consumer perception of product innovativeness within different CSR categories is made. The limitations of the research are discussed, which include the usage of a fictitious company and brand and a convenience sample.

The study offers guidance to managers in regard to their choice of different CSR practices to fulfill their company’s product-related strategic goals.

The present study takes a critical stance to show that previous experimental work investigating the impact of CSR image on product evaluations relied predominantly on bipolar manipulations of CSR practices (bad versus good) rather than bringing many shades of CSR into consideration. By incorporating a wide array of CSR formats, especially value-creating CSR, current research generates potential implications based on differential effects of various CSR focuses, which have not been captured by previous studies.

This paper aims to highlight dysfunctional multi-stakeholder relations and negative business outcomes, evidenced in lose/lose results, exacerbated by failure to acknowledge strategic business focus as a means to redress problematic business thinking and practice amongst key leadership teams associated with achieving balance between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.

The reframed strategic business focus has been developed using Eastern philosophy and Western organization theory and refers to four case examples of dysfunctional business thinking and practice.

Strategic business focus results from an interdependent and complementary positive mediating relationship between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, which is moderated by organization culture (organization core values, including shared value) and strategic human resource management (talent and mindset).

Strategic business focus as proposed has not been empirically tested but seeks to address a conceptualization that competing business and stakeholder agendas are interdependent and complementary.

Strategic business focus seeks to redress traditional win/lose and lose/lose business outcomes, by supporting win/win results, represented by shared value amongst multi-stakeholders.

Strategic business focus seeks to provide a means whereby corporate social responsibility, particularly the social contract, plays a key role in the decisions and practices of key leadership teams and the behaviour of corporate staff in host environments when seeking competitive advantage.

Eastern thinking and behaviour are usually undervalued in the western business literature, particularly in western business practice. Joint attention, however, may improve competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility agendas in support of diverse management practices, including shared value.

To determine the new responsibility and new form of CSR required in an evolving ecosystem, this chapter covers the historical evolution of CSR including the various additional labels CSR has attracted, and its many surrogate, complementary, and alternative terms and themes. Some parties still view CSR as just a form of Philanthropy; however, current definitions for CSR involve many components, which have adapted over time. The new CSR definition provided by the European Commission in 2011, for example, mirrors some of the changes created by the inclusion of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2015. The creation of shared and integrated value and the ongoing development of the social enterprise industry are further developments, alongside the growing trend toward B-Corp registration, the increasing emphasis on ‘business-for-purpose’ and the rise of the ‘be the change’ movement. This chapter discusses this journey and reveals how CSR has followed a cycle of social movements through several industrial revolutions. As we head toward the Fourth Industrial Revolution and usher in the new era for Globalization 4.0, this requires new business models, new labels, and new adaptations of CSR. These concepts are introduced in this chapter and developed further in later chapters.

This paper aims to contribute to the literature on corporate and leadership responsibility by proposing a relational business model for shared responsibility.

First, a literature review on corporate and leadership responsibility is presented and discussed. This is followed by an overview of existing public and private regulations and future perspectives that enforce and/or foster corporate and leadership responsibility. Based on the concepts of relational economics, relational leadership and proactive regulation, the theoretical foundations of a relational business model are derived. In addition, a decision model for the empirical application of the relational business model in ethical dilemma situations is developed and presented.

Theoretical elaboration of a relational business model and an associated relational decision-making approach.

This study contributes to a new way of doing business in terms of shared responsibility. Furthermore, corporate responsibility and leadership responsibility are usually researched as two distinct fields, with the former referring to the meso level and the latter to the micro level. A relational approach, which views leadership as a relational phenomenon, contributes to bridging both concepts.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce and provide an overview of the topic of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The approach is to present an introduction to the importance of the topic and a review of the concept’s evolution and development which includes an exploration of the topic’s meaning and competing and complementary frameworks which are related. Among these related concepts are the following: business ethics, stakeholder management, sustainability, corporate citizenship, creating shared value, conscious capitalism, and purpose-driven business. These concepts are frequently used interchangeably with CSR, and they have more in common than differences. At their core, each embraces value, balance, and accountability. The chapter also explores a number of key research avenues that are quite contemporary. Among these, the following topics are addressed: political CSR; the CSP–CFP relationship and business case for CSR; upstream/downstream CSR; CSR in emerging economies, corporate social activism, and corporate social irresponsibility. In the final analysis, it is argued that the topic of CSR continues to be on an upward and sustainable trajectory in both conceptual development and practice.

Both the theory and practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR) are foundational to the field of Business & Society (B&S). However, efforts to define and operationalize this construct have been undermined by definitional discord arising from the disparate sense-making assumptions and methods of competing North American and European research traditions. Scholars wedded to the North American research tradition have striven mightily to uncover “objective” evidence in support of the instrumental proposition that IF corporate executives were to invest more resources to enhance social and environmental performance, THEN the firm’s burnished brand image, reputation, and perceived legitimacy would elevate the firm’s long-term financial performance as well. However, the inconclusive statistical record has failed to move many corporate decision makers beyond the minimal social and environmental investments needed to create the impression of compliance with societal expectations. The proliferation of corporate scandals and the pattern of settling legal disputes without admitting guilt are also troubling. The muted impact of B&S research based on proving the instrumental proposition has prompted a new generation of European B&S scholars to explore the sense-making potential of the European research tradition, which seeks meaning and normative validity within a pluralist crucible of community discourse. This contested communicative space is filled with paradoxical tensions and contending stakeholder voices and narratives. With respect to CSR, this discursive sense-making process is animated by an aspiration toward constructing shared meanings that can guide a search for more collaborative approaches to addressing systemic challenges via stakeholder engagement and experiments in multisector collaborative problem-solving. Rather than try to scientifically “prove” a fact-based pre-existing condition, this approach embraces “an emergent and mediated form of strategic ambiguity” to keep open the possibility of “fulfilling often conflicting instrumental and social/ethical imperatives at the same time” (Guthey & Morsing, 2014, p. 556). This discourse-based search for shared meanings in support of a convergence of economic, social, and environmental values frames CSR as an aspirational cocreative process rather than as a pyramid of normative assertions loosely grounded on a search for validation in efforts to find correlations (or causation) within an assortment of “objective” facts. The discursive approach to constructing CSR also highlights the relevance of the emergence of institutional innovations that enable network interactions to address shared systemic problems. Ultimately, CSR may be expressed as a form of network governance seeking to assure the sustainable outcome of system health and vitality across micro-, meso-, and meta-levels of thought and action.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

This chapter examines public versus private sector roles in addressing CSR/Sustainability issues in the United States. It provides an historical perspective on the primacy of market-driven corporate practice in the United States and recent moves by the state to “balance” private and public interests through both regulatory and non-regulatory means. A typology of government and business roles, based on “who leads” and “who makes the rules,” illustrates shared governance of CSR/Sustainability in a variety of multisector and public–private partnerships.

Case studies examine how the U.S. government interacts with business and NGOs and its varied roles in the shared governance of sustainability. Examples from field interviews with business leaders in global operator General Electric (Global Business Initiative on Human Rights), apparel maker-and-seller Patagonia (Aquatic “Hitchhikers”), electronics retailer Best Buy (product recycling), IBM (global corporate volunteering), and others illustrate varieties of shared governance between business and the state in operation today.

Depending on “who leads” and “who makes the rules,” there are variations in whether responsible actions by the private sector are regulatory versus voluntary and whether government’s role involves mandating, partnering, facilitating, or endorsing private sector efforts. Successful shared governance depends on business’s “license to cooperate” and the multiple parties’s sharing responsibility for their goals, operations, and results.

There is a substantial literature on multi-business CSR-related networks and on business–NGO partnerships. Less attention has been given to the role of governments in this space, particularly in the United States where, partly for historical reasons, a company’s relationship with and obligations to society have been regarded as discretionary more so than regulatory activity and where government intervention in markets and in the affairs of companies has been sharply resisted, particularly by business interests, and is suspect among the citizenry.