Oxfordhb 9780199211593 e 004

The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility
Oxford Handbooks Online
The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility
Elizabeth C. Kurucz, Barry A. Colbert, and David Wheeler

The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility
Edited by Andrew Crane, Dirk Matten, Abagail McWilliams, Jeremy Moon, and Donald S. Siegel
Print Publication Date: Feb Subject: Business and Management, Business Policy and
2008 Strategy, Marketing
Online Publication Date: Sep DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211593.003.0004
2009
Abstract and Keywords
The purpose of this article is to provide a general summary of the key value propositions
evident in the research on the business case for corporate social responsibility (CSR),
described as four general ‘types’ of the business case, or four modes of value creation. It
then presents a critique of these approaches (including identifying some problems
inherent in the construct of CSR itself) and offers some principles for constructing a
‘better’ business case. Its intent is not to conduct a thorough review of studies analyzing
the relationship between CSR and financial performance, as that has been well done
elsewhere. Rather it seeks to unearth assumptions underlying dominant approaches in an
effort to build a more robust business case for CSR that can move beyond existing
limitations.
Keywords: research, business case, corporate social responsibility, value creation, financial performance
The old thinking was that if you make money you can do this positive social and
environmental stuff—but I think the true philosophy of sustainability is the
interdependence. It's not about charity; it's about the fact that if you do the right
things in the community, the community will do the right things for you. If you do
the right things for the environment, you'll have a stronger business so that you
can make more money. It's not about sort of a condescending view… I don't know
if that's subtle or if people don't get it, but it's very important. It's about
interdependence rather than balance. It's about mutual dependence or
interdependence, rather than charity. It's fundamental.
(Manufacturing Executive, 2005).
(p. 84)
Page 1 of 37
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Responsibility
I business
N practitioner terms, a ‘business case’ is a pitch for investment in a project or
initiative that promises to yield a suitably significant return to justify the expenditure. In
what has become known as the ‘business case for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)’
the pitch is that a company can ‘do well by doing good’: that is, can perform better
financially by attending not only to its core business operations, but also to its
responsibilities toward creating a better society. A long tradition of scholars have
examined this proposition, both theoretically (Carroll, 1979; Swanson, 1995, 1999; Wood,
1991), and empirically (Cochran and Wood, 1984; Graves and Waddock, 1994; Mattingly
and Berman, 2006; Russo and Fouts, 1997), primarily with a focus on conceptualizing,
specifying, and testing some relationship between corporate social performance (CSP)
and corporate financial performance (CFP). The results are decidedly mixed: a firm that
dedicates resources to fulfilling what are perceived to be its social responsibilities will
financially perform either better, worse, or the same as it might have done otherwise,
depending on which studies we line up and consult.
In a meta‐analysis of CSP–CFP studies correcting for sampling error and measurement

error, Orlitzky et al. (2003) found support for a generally positive relationship between
CSP and CSF across industries and study contexts, and Preston and O'Bannon (1997)
found evidence that positive financial performance either lagged or occurred
synergistically with positive social performance. At the level of the individual firm,
however, the question persists for both academics and practicing managers: is there a
generalizable ‘business case’ for CSR, and if so, what are its dimensions?
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a general summary of the key value propositions
evident in the research on the business case for CSR, described as four general ‘types’ of
the business case, or four modes of value creation. We will then present a critique of
these approaches (including identifying some problems inherent in the construct of CSR
itself) and offer some principles for constructing a ‘better’ business case. Our intent is
not to conduct a thorough review of studies analysing the relationship between CSR and
financial performance, as that has been well done elsewhere (Griffin and Mohon, 1997;
Orlitzky et al., 2003; Vogel, 2005). Rather we seek to unearth assumptions underlying
dominant approaches in an effort to build a more robust business case for CSR that can
move beyond existing limitations.
We take the view that managing a business enterprise is an increasingly complex task in
an era of globalized trade and competition, exponentially faster information flow, highly
fluid capital markets, and greater interconnectedness among civil society groups. Factors
bearing upon the successful operation of a business are multiple, often non‐linear and
stochastic (and therefore largely unpredictable), and inextricably entwined with the
needs of a global society—as described by the executive business practitioner in the
Page 2 of 37

Responsibility
opening quote from recent research. If ever the separation of business concerns from
those of society generally was real and (p. 85) justified—and we concur with those who
contend that it is, and has always been, a false distinction—such a separation is now not
only conceptually invalid, but is pragmatically untenable. Principles for constructing a
better ‘business case’ for CSR must reflect the changing conditions for business at a
global level.
This chapter is structured as follows: first we will draw on existing reviews and models to
construct an overview of four general types of business case for CSR, where each type
rests on a broad value proposition for corporate social responsiveness and performance;
the four are: cost and risk reduction, competitive advantage, reputation and legitimacy,
and synergistic value creation, focused on creating value on multiple fronts
simultaneously. Here we attempt to organize much of the literature under these four
value creation categories. Next we outline some underlying characteristics and basic
assumptions of each general type of CSR business case. Third, we consider key critiques
of the business case as highlighted in the broader CSR literature. Finally, we offer ideas
toward addressing these limitations, toward building more compelling business cases for
contemporary organizations operating in a complex global environment.
Four General Types of the Business Case for CSR

While there have been numerous reviews of the business case for CSR (Haigh and Jones,
2006; Margolis and Walsh, 2001; Salzmann et al., 2005; Smith, 2003; Vogel, 2005), most
are focused on organizing and evaluating the evidence for establishing a link between
corporate social responsibility and financial performance (Griffin and Mohon, 1997;
Orlitzky et al., 2003, Roman et al., 1999). Over 120 studies have examined this link over
the past 30 years with mixed results (Margolis and Walsh, 2003), which has left some
scholars in the field of CSR to question whether there is really any clear market
motivation for firms to engage in socially responsible behaviour (Vogel, 2005). It would
appear then that in the real world of strategic management a solid business case cannot
be built by depending solely on locating an irrefutably established causal connection
between CSP and financial performance.
Given these diverse reviews, this chapter will take a different approach. Although this
mixed evidence might suggest that there is no a priori reason to develop a business case
for CSR, there are growing calls for business to adopt a wider range of social and
environmental responsibilities—from business associations such as the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development and Business for Social Responsibility (Smith, 2003)
Page 3 of 37

Responsibility
and from governments and business leaders (Wheeler and Grayson, 2001). As the
economic, political, and social power of business has grown relative to other societal
institutions (governments, organized religion, for (p. 86) example), some argue that
corporate social responsibility has expanded to the provision of the kind of services that
used to be offered by governments and community organizations (Perrow, 2002;
Solomon, 1997), including the function of guarding and enabling citizens' rights
(Crane et al., 2004; Matten et al., 2003).
So here we have an apparent paradox: critics of business—and global business leaders

themselves—are calling for an increased role for business in social and environmental
affairs, yet there is mixed evidence of a positive ‘business case’ for CSR. Perhaps that is
because most business cases seek justification on purely economic grounds. We support
those who have argued that some kind of business case must be made in order to call
attention and garner support from the business sector (Joyner and Payne, 2002; Schmidt
Albinger and Freeman, 2000), but we suggest that the case to be made is qualitatively
different from the one that currently dominates the literature.
A necessary step towards advancing a robust business case for CSR is a close exploration
of the fundamental underlying assumptions of dominant approaches, so that we can move
beyond the stalemate between economic or ethical models of CSR (Driver, 2006; Matten
et al., 2003), and build a more ‘nuanced’ business case for virtue (Vogel, 2005). While
there is no universal definition of CSR (Carroll, 1999; Driver, 2006; Garriga and Melé,
2004; Smith, 2003; Van Marrewijk, 2003) this in itself is not problematic; like CSR,
‘sustainability’ has often been referred to as a ‘contested concept’ (Jacobs, 1999) and in
this field of alternate meanings lies opportunity for forward‐thinking businesses that
adopt this frame (Colbert et al., forthcoming 2008; Hart, 2005). We suggest that what is
needed is a set of questions for unearthing the underlying assumptions of the various
approaches in order to build a better (more robust, multidimensional, more compelling)
business case for CSR, in order to address the growing need for business to become
engaged in creating value on multiple fronts. In so doing we add to the call for the
development of more integrative models of CSR (Driver, 2006; Swanson, 1995, 1999;
Freeman, 2000), and make advances in that direction by offering a set of criteria that will
begin to enable a move beyond economic and ethical conceptions of the business case
through a focus on modes of value creation and the various dimensions that underlie this
construct.
This section presents findings from our review of the literature focusing on the business
case for CSR, which we have organized as four general types of business cases, each
embodying a proposition for value creation: cost and risk reduction, profit maximization
and competitive advantage, reputation and legitimacy, and synergistic value creation. As
Page 4 of 37

Responsibility
with other classification schemes, there may be disagreement on the placement of a topic
under one category or another, but we hold with Bowie and Dunfee (2002) who
emphasized the pragmatic usefulness of offering a classification scheme over an ad hoc
approach. We do not present these as mutually exclusive categories—a firm may be
involved in all four at once through a variety of policies and initiatives—but in our review
of the business case for CSR literature, (p. 87) we identified these as predominant
themes emphasized across the field of theories and studies.
In the following sections we describe these four general types of CSR business cases in
terms of the focus of the approach, the topics of empirical studies and theory papers that
characterize the type, as well as by the underlying assumptions about how value is
created and defined in each domain.
Cost and Risk Reduction: Optimization Subject to Constraints
The focus of this approach is that the firm chooses to engage, or not, in CSR related
activities in order to reduce costs and risks to the firm. A number of areas of inquiry
typify this general approach to building a business case for CSR, including: the trade‐off
hypothesis, the available funds hypothesis or slack resources theory, and enlightened
value maximization. Each of these hypotheses can be seen as embodying a view of value
creation as some form of trading interests among social, environmental, and economic
concerns.
The trade‐off hypothesis, which most explicitly displays this view of value creation, was
polemically defined by Milton Friedman (1962, 1970), who made a clear distinction
between what he considered to be the real obligations of corporate executives: to work
solely in the interests of the firm's owners, customers, and employees, and to eschew any
urge toward diverting funds to improving the general social good, which he deemed
‘taxation without representation’—grounds for another revolution. His succinct
libertarian view set a firm dichotomy in the debate between fulfilling fiduciary duties and
social responsibility, and established a benchmark statement on the negative trade‐off
view of CSR and costs to the firm: by increasing social performance for reasons of
managerial whimsy, firms incur unnecessary costs and reduce their profitability—a view
supported in a few subsequent studies in CSR (Kedia and Kuntz, 1981; Lerner and
Fryxell, 1988). Some studies under this approach have identified an inverted U
relationship which suggests that there is an optimal level of environmental and social
performance, beyond which the corporation is incurring unnecessary costs and
reductions in profitability (Salzmann et al., 2005; Lankoski, 2000). The available funds
hypothesis or slack resources theory (Waddock and Graves, 1997a), also assumes a trade‐
Page 5 of 37

Responsibility
off view of CSR and financial performance by suggesting that when organizations are
enjoying superior financial performance, or have slack resources, they are able to
dedicate additional resources to CSR activities. The implication in this approach is that
firms perceive CSR as an additional cost and thus can only afford to pursue these
activities when they are not in a situation where they need to minimize costs. In terms of
Carroll's characterization (1979, 1991) of four categories of responsibilities (economic,
legal, ethical, and discretionary or philanthropic), the slack resources theory addresses
primarily the discretionary responsibilities.
(p. 88)
A focus on enlightened value maximization (Jensen, 2002) implies that long‐term

corporate value maximization occurs through the appropriate management of trade‐offs
between stakeholders. Managerial decision trade‐offs are driven by the ‘agency solution’,
that is, the alignment of managerial interests with those of company owners through
executive compensation weighted with stock options. High incentive plans can lead to the
managerial opportunism hypothesis (Aklhafaji, 1989; Posner and Schmidt, 1992; Preston
and O'Bannon, 1997), which identifies the potential for executives to reduce social and
environmental spending, even when funds are available, in order to maximize personal
compensation linked to short‐term financial performance. Instrumental stakeholder
management (Berman et al., 1999; Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Quinn and Jones, 1995)
describes how the firm is affected by stakeholder relations with a view to risk and cost
reduction through trading off stakeholder concerns in the firm's decision‐making process.
Firms view stakeholders as part of the environment to be managed, rather than as
driving corporate strategic decisions (Berman et al., 1999), and attention to stakeholder
concerns helps to reduce corporate risk by avoiding decisions that will push stakeholders
to oppose the organization's objectives (Bowie and Dunfee, 2002). Establishing trusting
relationships with key stakeholders is seen from this perspective as having the potential
to significantly lower costs of the firm (Barney and Hansen, 1994; Hill, 1995; Jones, 1995;
Wicks et al., 1999; Godfrey, 2005). A focus on developing CSR standards and auditing
CSR practices is a focus of the risk management approach aimed at building confidence
among stakeholders (Story and Price, 2006; Kok et al., 2001); research that presents a
‘trading’ managerial view positions CSR as separate from and secondary to economic
performance (Adams, 2002) and strategic management (Dick‐Forde, 2005). How
organizations respond to expressions of morality in markets is influenced by a desire to
avoid consumer boycotts, liability suits, increased labour costs, and short‐term losses in
market capitalization (Bowie and Dunfee, 2002).
Under a cost and risk reduction perspective of the CSR business case, the primary view is
that the demands of stakeholders present potential threats to the viability of the
Page 6 of 37

Responsibility
organization, and that corporate economic interests are served by mitigating those
threats through a threshold level of social or environmental performance.
Competitive Advantage: Adapting and Leveraging Opportunities
In this general case, CSR initiatives are conceived strategically as conferring competitive
advantage on the firm over industry rivals. A number of topics relate to this area of focus,
including: the supply and demand theory of the firm, base of (p. 89) the pyramid
approaches, a natural resource‐based view of the firm, and including stakeholders for
competitive advantage. What is common to these perspectives is the characterization of
value creation occurring through the firm adapting to its external context in order to
optimize the organization's competitive advantage in its respective industry.
The supply and demand theory of corporate CSR (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Anderson
and Frankle, 1980; Aupperle et al., 1985; Freedman and Jaggi, 1982) takes an adaptation
perspective toward the external environment by suggesting that firms will supply only the
level of environmental and social performance that is demanded of them, with a view to
profit maximization. Base of the pyramid approaches (Hart and Christensen, 2002;
Prahalad, 2004; Prahalad and Hammond, 2002; Prahalad and Hart, 2002) examine how
multinational firms might adapt to global drivers for change, such as population growth
and poverty, in order to capitalize on the ‘fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’ (Prahalad
and Hart, 2002). Similarly, adaptations of the traditional resource‐based view of strategic
management (Barney, 1991) are the ‘natural resource based view’ (Hart, 1995), natural
capitalism (Lovins et al., 1999) and the sustainable value framework (Hart, 1997; Hart
and Milstein, 1999, 2003) that challenge managers to adapt to global drivers of change
using an appropriate set of ‘sustainability lenses’ that allow a firm to segment
shareholder value creation strategies. Also in line with the resource‐based view, social
and ethical resources and capabilities (Harrison and St John, 1996; Hillman and Keim,
2001; Litz, 1996; Petrick and Quinn, 2001) are conceived in this approach as internal
organizational resources that build competitive advantage by enabling a strategic
adaptation to the external environment. Approaches advocating stakeholder inclusion in
strategy‐making (Hart and Sharma, 2004; Mitchell et al., 1997; Ogden and Watson, 1999;
Wheeler and Sillanpää, 1998) also take an adaptation perspective toward creation of
investor value. Competitive strategic positioning is the focus of Porter and Van der
Linde's (1995) view of CSR as a competitive driver to be resourced by the firm. Social
investments in a competitive context (Porter and Kramer, 1999, 2002) or strategic
philanthropy (Bruch and Walter, 2005; Smith, 1994) also fall under this approach where
firms elect to engage in philanthropic efforts that are supported by the core
Page 7 of 37

Responsibility
competencies of their organization, adapting to stakeholder expectations in order to
generate sustainable performance with regard to stakeholder needs and their own
competitive advantage.
In sum, adaptive approaches to building a business case for CSR focus on building firm
competitive advantage through strategically orienting and directing resources toward the
perceived demands of stakeholders. Stakeholder demands are viewed less as constraints
on the organization, and more as opportunities to be leveraged for the benefit of the firm.
(p. 90) Reputation and Legitimacy: Building a Responsible Brand
The business case built in this domain is focused on exploiting CSR activities in order to
build value through gains in firm reputation and legitimacy. Frames of inquiry associated
with this view include: licence to operate, social impact hypothesis, cause‐related
marketing, and socially responsible investing. These approaches are characterized by a
focus on value creation by leveraging gains in reputation and legitimacy made through
aligning stakeholder interests.
Licence to operate concepts can be linked to Davis's (1973) ‘iron law of responsibility’
with the idea that a business organization is a social entity that must exercise responsible
use of its power, or risk having it revoked, and thereby lose control over its own decision
making and external interactions (Sethi, 1979). Social impact hypothesis (Cornell and
Shapiro, 1987; Pava and Krausz, 1996; Preston and O'Bannon, 1997) focuses on the
importance of alignment by suggesting that failure to meet stakeholder needs has a
negative impact on firm reputation and thus suggests that the costs of CSR activities are
much less than the potential benefits. Other studies focus on the positive link between a
firm's corporate social performance and reputation (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Turban
and Greening, 1997). Social cause‐related marketing (Drumwright, 1996; Varadarajan
and Menon, 1988; Murray and Montanari, 1986) highlights the alignment of stakeholder
and firm interests by linking corporate philanthropy and marketing, showcasing socially
and environmentally responsible behavior of the firm in order to generate reputational
gains. Studies on ethical purchasing behavior and green consumerism (Crane, 2001;
Frankel, 1998; Peattie, 1998), an extension of consumer sovereignty arguments that have
been employed to model citizenry behaviour in political markets (Haigh and Jones, 2006;
Jones, 1995), consider how a strong product brand or reputation acts as a marketing
differentiation strategy for firms that can impact financial performance through
enhancing reputation (Smith, 1990; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Brown and Dacin, 1997;
Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001).
Page 8 of 37

Responsibility
Socially responsible investing (Barnett and Salomon, 2003; Domini, 2001; Kinder et al.,
1993) and ethical investing (Mackenzie and Lewis, 1999) emphasize an alignment
between a potential investor's ethics and expectations of corporate social performance,
suggesting a relationship with reputation and market value. Studies on the attractiveness
of corporations as prospective employers (Schmidt Albinger and Freeman, 2000;
Waddock et al., 2002; Riordan et al., 1997; Turban and Greening, 1997; Stigler, 1962)
emphasize the alignment between a firm's reputation in the area of CSR and its ability to
attract talent. Reputation and legitimacy is also the focus of intrinsic stakeholder
approaches (Calton and Lad, 1995; Jones, 1995) that compare the approach a firm uses to
interact with one stakeholder group, and its effects on stakeholder groups' perceptions.
Isomorphic pressure for social responsibility is explored for its role in motivating CSR
where an organization might gain first mover advantage and reap the rewards of
reputational gains with (p. 91) dominant stakeholders (Bansal and Roth, 2000) or within
industry‐specific CSR initiatives (King and Lenox, 2000). The potential performance
benefits granted through enhanced legitimation from corporate CSR disclosures (Gelb
and Strawser, 2001; King and Lenox, 2001) is another area of inquiry in this general type
of business case for CSR. Supply chain pressures on firms to seek social or environmental
certification in order to support their legitimacy (Cashore, 2002) is another topic area
that supports a business case for CSR through concerns with impact on firm reputation.
In summary, these topics and studies, organized under an aligning perspective, focus on
building competitive advantage by enhancing the reputation and legitimacy of the
organization through firm CSR initiatives.
Synergistic Value Creation: Seeking Win‐Win‐Win Outcomes
The focal point of this approach is in finding win‐win‐win outcomes by seeking out and
connecting stakeholder interests, and creating pluralistic definitions of value for multiple
stakeholders simultaneously. Topics gathered under this approach to the business case
include: positive synergy or ‘virtuous circle’, sustainable local enterprise networks, value‐
based networks, and societal learning. A focus underlying these approaches is the view
that creating connections between stakeholders by relating common interests will open
up heretofore unseen opportunities for multi‐point value creation.
Positive synergy or the ‘virtuous’ circle' approach (Pava and Krausz, 1996; Preston and
O'Bannon, 1997; Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998; Waddock and Graves, 1997b) highlights
positive gains generated through combining slack resources and good management. The
sustainable local enterprise networks (Wheeler et al., 2005) model emerged from
examining 50 case studies of successful and self‐reliant sustainable enterprise‐based
Page 9 of 37

Responsibility
activities in developing countries, resulting in virtuous cycles of reinvestment in human,
social, financial, and ecological capital. The value‐based networks conception (Wheeler et
al., 2003) describes how communities and social networks united by a sense of what is
valuable create new opportunities for mutual gain. The concept of the triple bottom line
of sustainability (Elkington, 1998) emphasizes synergies that can emerge for
organizations, environment, and societies through integrating efforts across these
domains.
Societal learning is defined as articulating new paradigms that can alter the perspectives,
goals, and behaviours of social systems larger than particular organizations (Brown and
Ashman, 1998). Of the three types of learning—single, double, and triple loop (Argyris
and Schon, 1978)—societal learning deals with triple‐loop learning (rethinking the rules
of the business and society relationship), although it often is stymied at double‐loop
learning (reflection on how to play the current game better) (Waddell, 2002).
(p. 92)
In summary, approaches advocating synergistic value creation are focused on seeking

opportunities to unearth, relate, and synthesize the interests of a diverse set of
stakeholders, broadly conceived. Because many of these emerging ideas fall outside of
traditional business models, they are the least represented in our framework of value
creation approaches.
Summary of Section: Four General Types of the Business Case
The business case for CSR is conceived under a wide range of topical and theoretical
approaches. We have offered a typology of the chief approaches according to the basic
value proposition embodied in each.
There are subtle but distinct differences between some approaches we have categorized
under one type of business case or another. For example, one could argue for base of the
pyramid (BoP) approaches to be situated under a synergistic value creation instead of
competitive advantage view. Our rationale is that BoP advocates typically exhort
multinational corporations (MNCs), primarily situated in more developed nations, to
enter less developed geographies and find business opportunity by alleviating social
problems, but with much of the financial value captured by the MNC. Sustainable local
enterprise networks, by comparison, assume a more organic, grassroots, relativistic
approach, and work with existing networks. The private sector is one player that can
extract value but not necessarily the key player.
Page 10 of 37

Responsibility
Our intent here is to draw some broad second‐level CSR value creation categories in
order to examine some of the basic assumptions underpinning the various business case
pitches. The next section highlights some general characteristics of each type of business
case, along with some basic underlying assumptions.
Underlying Characteristics and Basic Assumptions of the Four

Types of CSR Business Case
Each general type of CSR business case we have constructed embodies a number of
characteristics and is underpinned by some basic assumptions. Our assessment of these
underpinnings is necessarily broad, with the aim of sketching the general contours of
each approach—to step back from the trees and describe the shape of the forest of CSR
business case research. Characteristics we highlight are: the (p. 93) fundamental
proposition for how value is created (and for whom); emphasis regarding a particular role
for business; a preferred level of theorizing on which it is focused; and a dominant logic
under which the basic proposition is grounded. Basic assumptions include the underlying
ontological stance and epistemological stance of each of these approaches, which we will
highlight in order to identify opportunities to bridge traditional debates in CSR. The
general shape of each type is outlined in Table 4.1.
Page 11 of 37

Responsibility
Table 4.1 Four types of business case value creation Cost and risk reduction
Competitive Competitive Reputation Synergistic

reduction advantage and value
legitimacy creation
Key Value Trading: Adapting: A Aligning: Relating:

Proposition Engaging in strategic Exploiting Integrating
CSR to approach to CSR activities stakeholder
reduce costs CSR to build to build value interests to
and risks to relative through gains create value
the firm competitive in firm on multiple
advantage reputation and fronts
legitimacy
Central role of Economic Economic Political Actor Social Actor

business Actor Actor
Level of Theory Organization Industry Political and Societal

Cultural
System
Assumed Linear Complicated Complex Self‐

Nature of Organizing
Interactions
Dominant Logic Normative Normative Normative Cognitive

Economic Economic Political Social
Ontological Unequivocal Unequivocal Equivocal Equivocal

stance but
grounded
(language,
history,
culture)
Page 12 of 37

Responsibility
Epistemological Positivism Post‐ Social Pragmatism

stance Positivism Construction
(Structuralist
to
Interactionist)
Key Proposition for Value Creation
The four general types of CSR business case we have described differ in their key value
propositions based on the approach to dealing with elements in the organizational
environment (stakeholder interests, competitive pressures, or other), each of which is
succinctly captured under our four active descriptors: trading, adapting, aligning, or
relating. Business cases framed as cost and risk reduction focus on trading among what
are viewed generally as competing interests; competitive advantage business cases
describe payoffs accrued through adapting to the competitive environment; a CSR
proposition based on building reputation and legitimacy (p. 94) advocates aligning with
political and social norms and expectations; and synergistic value creation approaches
are aimed at relating disparate elements in the operating domain, and integrating those
elements in novel ways.
Central Actor Role for Business
Across the theories underpinning these four broad propositions for business value
creation there are, implied and explicit, a number of ‘actor roles’ for business institutions
to play in society. Garriga and Melé (2004) mapped the territory of CSR theory and
offered a set of four groups: instrumental theories, in which the organization is seen only
as an instrument for wealth creation; political theories, which are concerned with the use
of corporate power in the political arena; integrative theories, which focus on the
satisfaction of social demands; and ethical theories, which are based on the
responsibilities of corporations to society. These groups of theories correspond roughly to
Carroll's (1991) categories (a pyramid of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
responsibilities) though his morality‐based perspective would fit into the latter of the
theoretical groups.
If we consider these groups of general theories and responsibilities in the CSR field at
large, and we view ‘business’ (we use this term in the general sense to mean the private
business sector, focusing mainly on public corporations) as a value‐creating actor in the
Page 13 of 37

Responsibility
world, we can draft various actor roles that business is purported to play in global
society. Both the cost and risk reduction and competitive advantage approaches take the
explicit view that business is primarily an economic actor—the chief (or in the extreme,
only) function of business is to efficiently convert inputs to products and services and to
create financial wealth, and CSR activities are admitted as a means to that narrow end.
Business cases based on a reputation and legitimacy approach highlight the political actor
role for business. This includes and extends the economic role to include a complex mix
of political and economic interests and dynamics. The power and position of the
corporation in society is the central concern; the organization accepts social duties and
rights or participates in some form of social cooperation (Garriga and Melé, 2004) as an
expected part of doing business. Synergistic value creation approaches focus on the firm
as an integrative social actor, which we define to embrace both the economic and political
roles for business, and also extend to improving general social well‐being. This is not a
new idea, but one based on the reasonable presumption that economics and politics are
human constructs, and therefore integral to the broad societal domain. This conception is
consistent with the ‘concentric circles’ depiction of corporate responsibility issued by the
Committee for Economic Development (CED), based on the notion that ‘business
functions by public consent and its basic purpose is to constructively serve the needs of
society’ (1971: 11, cited in (p. 95) Carroll 1999). The first circle holds the economic and
efficiency function of a corporation, the second contains the responsibility to execute the
economic function with sensitivity to context, including changing social values and
priorities, and the outer circle holds the responsibility to actively improve the general
social environment, including the natural environment. The outer circle contains the
inner two, and is not separable. This view is all the more relevant in an increasingly
globalizing business environment.
Main Level of Theorizing
The level of theory (Klein et al., 1994) is the organizational level that the researcher is
attempting to depict or describe, and is the level to which the findings are purported to
be generalizable. The four general types of CSR business case vary across theoretical
levels; that is, each includes and describes interactions and effects at various levels in the
business system. Theorizing in the cost and risk reduction view is centered on the
organization, with key variables such as CSP and CFP distinctly attached to the firm;
competitive advantage approaches necessarily include consideration of the relevant
industry dynamics; reputation and legitimacy business cases address elements in the
political and cultural context; and synergistic value creation approaches take a wide view
of all components of the societal context. Again here, these are not mutually exclusive
Page 14 of 37

Responsibility
categories; there is an accumulative expansion of variables under consideration moving
left to right.
Assumed Nature of System Interactions
As the level of theory is raised above the organization level there is a corresponding
assumption regarding the nature of system interaction effects across the four general
types. Cost and risk reduction approaches, often involving linear regression of CSF
dependent variables on CSP/CSR independent variables, generally assume linear effects;
competitive advantage approaches typically involve mediating or moderating strategic
variables, complicating direct linear effects; a reputation and legitimacy view
acknowledges non‐linear complex effects in qualitative reputational narratives; and
synergistic value creation approaches emphasize the self‐organizing tendency of complex
interactive variables. ‘Complex’ in this instance ‘means more than just “complicated”; it
describes a system whose component agents operate with some measure of autonomy, as
well as in relation to other system components, i.e. independently and interdependently.
That interaction gives rise to emergent properties that are irreducible, that exist only in
relationship. As Cilliers (1998) has noted, an airliner is merely complicated; a mayonnaise
is complex’ (Colbert 2004: 349).
(p. 96) Dominant Logic Frame
The dominant logic frame describes the grounds for logical justification in each of the
four general CSR business case types. A key debate in the literature turns on how to
justify CSR‐related corporate activity, which we address in the next section on key
critiques. In our construction of four general types we deliberately have not separated
out a purely ‘moral business case’, as we adopt the assumption that morality and ethics
are embedded within constructs of economy and politics: to suggest that these are value‐
free realms is absurd, despite the distinctions made in much of the CSR literature. The
four general types constructed here are justified on normative economic grounds,
normative political grounds, or on grounds of cognitive social integration—that is, of
unearthing and connecting notions of value and values in the broad social domain. The
cost and risk reduction and the competitive advantage approaches appeal exclusively to
economic logic and norms; the reputation and legitimacy cases find grounding in political
logic—in the relative power dynamics operating in the prevailing social system, in the
service of economic ends; and the synergistic value creation approach is grounded in
cognitive social integration.
Page 15 of 37

Responsibility
Relevant Ontological and Epistemological Stance
Economics‐based descriptive research, which includes the cost and risk reduction and
competitive advantage business cases, is primarily founded on a realist ontology that sees
reality as objective and unequivocal (Wicks and Freeman, 1998). Both predominantly
embody a positivist epistemological stance, which relies ‘on the assumption of an
objective world external to the mind that is mirrored by scientific data and theories’
(Gephart, 2004: 456). A degree of relativism is admitted under a competitive advantage
approach through a post‐positivist epistemological stance, which holds that reality can
only be known probabilistically; plurality is typically introduced in taking stakeholder
constructions into strategy formulation processes.
Reputation and legitimacy approaches are built on an equivocal, constructivist ontology

and epistemology. The social construction of reality means that social existence is a
human construction, while at the same time human perspectives are shaped by social
factors (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). There are two main streams of social construction:
an interactionist approach and a structuralist approach (Pfeffer, 1985). The interactionist
position is one of extreme relativism, with each event knowable only from the perspective
of the individual experiencing it, whereas the structuralist sees patterns of meaning
shaped by roles and shared paradigms, which both structure and constrain the
interpretations that are given to interaction patterns. Reputation and legitimacy are
constructs that can be framed from both an interactionist and a structuralist view.
(p. 97)
The synergistic value creation view holds an equivocal, or relativist, ontology, but adopts
a pragmatic stance that sees intersubjective realities as mediated by language, history,
and culture (Wicks and Freeman, 1998). A pragmatic epistemology rejects the categorical
distinctions of positivism, and the absolute relativism of anti‐positivism, and assesses
research not on grounds of ‘truth’, however constructed, but on grounds of usefulness
(Wicks and Freeman, 1998)—in this case, usefulness applies to the level and range of
value creation through corporate CSR activities.
Underlying Characteristics and Assumptions: Summary
The characteristics and assumptions described above and displayed in Table 4.1 help to
illustrate some key differences across the four types of CSR business case. Differences
across the central role of business, and the level of theorizing point to an opportunity to
broaden the scope of business‐case making to explicitly include consideration of value
Page 16 of 37

Responsibility
creation at various levels—levels that are cumulatively integrated, or exist as nested
systems. The range of the assumed nature of system interactions and variations in the
dominant logic taken together suggest there are alternate ways in which a business case
can be framed. There are also alternate ways in which one might be received by
managers and stakeholders, once we admit a wider variety of sense‐making frames and
processes of meaning creation. And finally, the variation in ontological and
epistemological stances indicates that the methods by which we attempt to describe and
justify a business case for CSR could be broader than they are typically.
General Critiques of the Business Case for CSR

Building a ‘business case’ for CSR implies we are building a coherent justification for a
corporation to invest in CSR‐defined initiatives. The central debates and critiques in the
CSR literature, as they relate to a business case for CSR, are therefore problems of
justification. Three key problems that recur in CSR critiques are: the level of justification
(organization and society); the logic of justification (economic, ethical, political, social);
and the grounds of justification (positivist, anti‐positivist, and pragmatist).
(p. 98)
Level of Justification: Organization and Society
The search for definitive causal connections between CSP and CFP has yielded
inconclusive results (Griffin and Mohon, 1997), and some have argued that the search is
pointless, because there logically cannot be a consistently positive relationship between
these two constructs: the working assumption of CSP research is that corporate social
and financial performance are universally related, and it is an extreme, untenable
proposition to assert that any management initiative is always positively correlated with
financial results under any conditions (Rowley and Berman, 2000). While generalizable
justification at the level of the single organization might inherently not be possible, meta‐
studies have found a positive correlation overall between CSP and CFP indicators
(Orlitzsky et al., 2003; Preston and O'Bannon, 1997). This suggests that CSR business
case arguments might be more appropriately framed at multiple levels simultaneously:
we might see ‘the projects of “self‐creation” and ‘community creation’ as two sides of the
same coin, and see in institutions many possibilities for different ways of living together
to pursue the joint ends of individual and collective good’ (Freeman and Liedtka, 1991:
96).
Page 17 of 37

Responsibility
Logic of Justification: Economic, Ethical, Political, Social
The problem with the logic of justification is most often characterized as a schism
between economic and ethical justifications for CSR—the implication being that economic
evidence is not normative, is value free. This problem is perpetuated due to an inherent
defect in the construct of CSR itself: by asserting that corporations must attend to ‘social
responsibilities’ in addition to ‘business responsibilities’, we admit that the two are
distinct and separable. This distinction is further amplified when we attempt to justify
CSR with a ‘business case’, i.e. when we attempt to express the value of socially
responsible practices in purely financial terms, which says that financial performance
stands as sufficient justification for CSR‐related activity.
Swanson (1995) described several theory‐building problems with ‘economic’ and ‘duty‐
aligned’ (ethical, political, social) perspectives of CSP research: incompatible value
outcomes, a focus on individual choice, and narrow value orientations. Others have
argued that CSR justified on economic models presents a too‐narrow idea of the
corporation and of the interests of investors (Gioia, 2003; Stormer, 2003), for whom,
presumably, a business case for CSR is built.
Burrell and Morgan described a unitary view of organizations as one that tends to stress
that the corporation is a cooperative enterprise united in the pursuit of a common goal. A
pluralist view stresses the diversity of individual goals and interests—the formal goals of
an organization are seen as ‘little more than a legitimizing (p. 99) façade, an umbrella
under which a host of individual and group interests are pursued as ends in
themselves’ (1979: 202–3). Debate between economic and ethical justifications for CSR is
a debate between two fundamental conceptions of what is a corporation: a disconnected,
simple entity with unidimensional, stable interests, or an interconnected, complex self
with multidimensional, dynamic interests, taking responsibility for a greater common
good (Driver, 2006).
Throughout the CSR literature, economic and ethical justifications are separated, and the
latter are called ‘normative’; we rejected that separation in our overview of the
underlying characteristics of business case arguments, and used the terms normative
economic and normative political to foreground the integration of ethics and values into
those paradigms. All management research is normative in the sense that every paradigm
rests on some (often unstated, unchallenged) assumptions about what is good and
valuable and worth pursuing; CSR researchers hold that firms have real obligations to a
broad set of stakeholders, and because this runs counter to the dominant ideology of
shareholder primacy, they appeal to ethical arguments to substantiate their preferences
Page 18 of 37

Responsibility
(de Bakker et al., 2005); this creates the appearance of a separation between ethics and
economics where none exists, as the dominant view is just as ethically laden. This false
separation is perpetuated when we attempt to justify positive social behaviour in
economic terms, rather than as valuable in itself, and as integral to a healthy capitalist
business system.
Grounds of Justification: Positivist, Anti‐positivist, and Pragmatist
A further critique occurs on epistemological grounds of justification for CSR: what has
been called the ‘integration dilemma’ (Swanson 1999: 507), of bringing together
empirical (descriptive) and normative (prescriptive) approaches. Empirical inquiry
investigates measurement, explanation, and prediction, while normative inquiry focuses
on moral evaluation, judgment, and prescription of human action (Trevino and Weaver,
1994). Positivistic approaches place a sharp distinction between describing and
prescribing: in descriptive work, researchers stand as neutral observers, using scientific
methods to make contact with ‘reality’, to report to managers ‘in an unbiased way what
empirical forces are to be reckoned with in a given context’ (Wicks and Freeman, 1998:
125). When prescription is undertaken, as it often is in the strategy discipline, it is done
so on the grounds of assumed goals such as corporate efficiency and wealth
maximization. An anti‐positivist epistemology (including interpretive, constructivist, and
morally normative approaches) admits an intersubjective, multi‐vocal plurality to the
grounds of justification, but is in danger of collapsing under the weight of the relativist
dilemma, where nothing useful can be said to advance organizational practice, lest one
view be privileged over another. The pragmatist approach employs the criterion of
‘usefulness’—though not in the (p. 100) utilitarian sense of ‘the greatest good for the
greatest possible number’. Rather, useful ‘in the sense of helping people to cope with the
world or to create better organizations’ (Wicks and Freeman, 1998: 129). A pragmatic
epistemology admits multi‐vocality, but finds evaluative criteria in higher order
humanistic goals.
Summary
These three problems: the level, logic, and grounds of justification are critical issues to be
addressed in formulating research in the business case for CSR. These problems are at
some level irresolvable, and are exacerbated by the construct of CSR itself. Rather than
attempt resolution, we will next offer ideas toward building more expansive conceptions
of the CSR business case to embrace these apparent paradoxes.
Page 19 of 37

Responsibility
Building a Better Business Case for CSR: Addressing the

Critiques and Embracing a Social Actor Role for Business
We suggest that progression toward a more integral approach to CSR, with a focus on
modes of value creation, would assist with developing a more robust rationale for why
CSR matters to business theorists and practitioners. To set out some recommendations in
this regard, it would first be helpful to consider three ‘eras’ of CSR research (Van
Marrewijk, 2003), and how we might envisage different incarnations of the business case
for CSR in relation to those eras. We consider how research in CSR might shift in order to
enable the development of a ‘postconventional’ view of the business case for corporate
social responsibility. Our recommendations will address the ontological (rational to
pluralistic to integral), epistemological (reductive to fragmented to integrative), and
methodological (positivist to constructivist to pragmatic) transitions that we argue are
required for this new ‘era’ of the business case in CSR to be fully realized.
Three Eras in CSR Research and the Business Case for Social
Responsibility
Different authors have outlined historical eras in CSR in terms of a sequence of

approaches (Carroll, 1999; Freeman, 1984; Van Marrewijk, 2003). Rather than take
(p. 101) this as a succession of eras, where the shareholder approach was replaced by the
stakeholder approach and so on, we suggest that these approaches exist simultaneously,
one building on the next and necessitating a broader business case be built (this is a
matter of shifting emphasis: ‘stakeholder’‐focused management has existed since the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution,1 what is novel is that this view has been named
and described, and has moved to the mainstream of management thought and practice).
The first era of shareholder primacy is characterized by a view of organizations as
primarily accountable to shareholders, evidenced most clearly in the cost and risk
reduction approach, and to some degree in the competitive advantage view to building a
business case for CSR. The second era of stakeholder management broadens the locus of
reference for the firm toward incorporation of, and adaptation to, a variety of stakeholder
interests. In the general types of the business case for CSR, competitive advantage and
reputation and legitimacy approaches demonstrate thinking in this ‘era’ by extending the
role of business beyond that of an economic actor, toward acknowledging a dual role for
business: as both economic and political actor. This approach thus builds on the
perspective of the previous era, rather than negating it, developing a richer and fuller
view of the organization in context. The third era of social integration, or a societal
Page 20 of 37

Responsibility
approach, is represented by a move away from thinking about social responsibility toward
thinking about societal responsibility (Gioia, 2003). CSR theory and research that builds
the business case for synergistic value creation begins to advance into this era by
incorporating a view of business as an economic, political, and social actor (all of which
embrace ethics). Each of these eras co‐exists in the social integration approach to CSR,
with ‘eras’ representing waves of influence in the dominant approaches, rather than
temporally distinct conceptions. In fact, the social integration perspective was embodied
in the CED (1971) description of CSR more than 35 years ago, and thus does not
represent a modern ‘era’, so much as a worldview toward social systems as holistic and
contextually sensitive.
Eras of CSR and Development in Human Systems
Click to view larger
Fig. 4.1 CSR value holarchy
In order to explore this more fully, we follow Van Marrewijk (2003) and invoke Ken
Wilber's thinking on levels of development in human systems. The four value propositions
identified earlier as four general types of the business case for CSR can be conceived of
as four modes of value creation, underlain by several dimensions. These dimensions can
be mapped across the three eras of general CSR research in order to describe a new form
of the business case for CSR, one that holds the promise of advancing the field. In his
map of ‘human possibilities’, Wilber (2000) describes the evolution of social systems and
related evolution in culture and (p. 102) worldview in terms of preconventional,
conventional, and postconventional states, and these can map onto the different eras of
CSR. Shareholder primacy typifies the preconventional ‘corporate states’ approach to
social systems reflected in a scientific rational worldview. Stakeholder approaches can be
seen as the conventional state, organizing society in terms of ‘value communities’ that
are embodied within a pluralistic perspective. Finally, the postconventional approach of
societal integration portrays a view of social systems as an integral commons,
Page 21 of 37

Responsibility
coextensive with an integral worldview—a creative space (physical, cognitive, or virtual)
to foster the coming together of humanistic interest and intention.
In this progression, nothing is lost, but there is an increase in integrative capacity that
facilitates a move toward holism—the progression is not ‘hierarchical’, but ‘holarchical’.
Figure 4.1 depicts a CSR value holarchy. Each stage can be viewed as ‘higher or deeper,
meaning more valuable and useful for a wider range of interactions’ (Wilber, 1998: 59).
Click to view larger
Fig. 4.2 Four modes of value creation in the CSR business case
While acknowledging that the ‘pluralistic relativism’ of stakeholder management is a

positive progression, it must be viewed as a precursor to moving to the ground for
integration, or be found irrelevant; without integration, pragmatic action is stymied.
Within the stakeholder management era then, the move away from dealing with a few
individual stakeholders that are powerful, legitimate, and urgent (Mitchell et al., 1997)
and the increasing trend toward acknowledging a wider range of ‘fringe stakeholders’
(Hart and Sharma, 2004) holds great potential for enhancing contextual sensitivity.
However, there is the danger that this new radical pluralism will collapse to
fragmentation and challenge any action beyond individual agency. It is necessary to view
this as a stage of development toward integralism. For business organizations,
integralism occurs when deep and broad social needs are put to the foreground in re‐
imagination of business strategies—when strategic planning exercises are driven from an
intensive (p. 103) exploration and understanding of real human needs, versus
commercially created wants. This move honours that difference but creates a healthy
tension between agency and communion, in order to avoid what Wilber calls the
‘pathology’ of fragmentation.
In our analysis of the business case for CSR, this integral commons is approached in the
move from stakeholder management to social integration through a focus on value‐based
networks, with modes of value creation forming the business case for corporate social
responsibility (see Fig. 4.2). We describe the dimensions of these modes of value creation
more fully in the following three recommendations for building a better business case for
Page 22 of 37

Responsibility
CSR; that is, one that has more integrative capacity, is more holistic and allows for
emergence, and thus is more valuable and useful for a wider range of interactions.
Recommendations for Building a Better Case for CSR: Dimensions of

Modes of Value Creation
In this section we will discuss three recommendations for building a better business case
for CSR: acknowledging complexity, building integrative capacity, and encouraging
pragmatism.
Acknowledge Complexity and Allow for Emergence

To overcome the difficulty in conceiving a business case for CSR, it is essential to
broaden the locus of reference for business away from an organization‐centric to an
organization‐and‐society view. We argue that CSR research needs to move beyond the
reductive approach of the rational view, and the fragmented challenges of (p. 104) radical
pluralism, to a view of the organization as part of an integral complex network,
‘interdependent and complexly interactive’ (Wilber, 1998: 57).
Causal effects in complex systems are both linear and non‐linear, and complex living
systems pursue multiple goals (Frederick, 1998; Colbert, 2004). Frederick (1998)
suggests that a paradigm shift in which we move beyond existing stakeholder concepts to
a view of social systems that draws on insights from complex natural systems is essential
for the field to respond to urgent questions facing business and society. This complexity
perspective would focus more on non‐linear emergent outcomes, rather than on more
reductive or linear relationships.
Build Integrative Capacity for a more Holistic Approach

Our second recommendation for building a better business case for CSR is to focus on
enhancing the integrative capacity of business in order to encourage holism. CSR needs
to move beyond the economic/ethical divide through a decreased emphasis on reductive
or fragmented approaches to a more integrative perspective. This integrative capacity is
characterized by a move from corporate states, to value communities to a view of the
integral commons—that is, by a capacity for members of the organization to view
themselves and their work as a part of something larger, whether purpose‐bound or
value‐chain‐defined, and then to assess whether that larger purpose is satisfactory.
Frederick (1998) comments on the ‘pre‐Copernican’ state of dominant CSR research and
theorizing, advocating a move away from the organization as the central focus of CSR
analysis that has led much of this research to a dead end. He draws on complexity
theorist Stuart Kauffman (1992) to describe how it is essential to broaden the context
Page 23 of 37

Responsibility
within which we consider human relations and ‘decenter’ the corporation away from the
normative reference for the field of social issues in management. In a similar fashion,
Gioia (2003) advocates moving from the concept of ‘social responsibility’ to that of
‘societal responsibility’. This shift would emphasize the move away from creating
organizational wealth, to the organization as an instrument for creating broader societal
value. This view of business as an interdependent system is essential for recognizing the
complexity of globalization and the interaction of systems, so that CSR becomes the
foundation for strategic action rather than an add‐on (Stormer, 2003). This requires
moving beyond the stakeholder model of the firm to an inter‐systems model of business
(Stormer, 2003): shifting the assumption of corporations as autonomous or independent
entities, which secondarily consider their obligations to the community, toward a view of
firms as part of the communities that created them (Solomon, 2004) as an essential
element of this critique. This is characterized by a shift from the ‘egoic’ view of the self as
alienated and autonomous toward the ‘post‐egoic’ view of the organization self as
interdependent (Driver, 2006). Rather than focusing exclusively on the ‘responsibilities’
piece of the term, which emphasizes an ‘atomistic (p. 105) individualism’ (Solomon, 2004:
1029) there is a need to emphasize the social aspect as well. We argue that in order to
address critiques of the dominant approaches to the business case for CSR, we need to
return to some more fundamental questions about the self and communities that will
allow us to envision new forms of social and economic life (Freeman and Liedtka 1991).
Encourage Pragmatism to Enhance Value Creation

Our final recommendation for building a more robust business case for CSR deals with
the importance of moving beyond positivist and constructivist epistemologies to embrace
a pragmatic perspective. We have argued that each stage in the eras of development is
deeper, more valuable, and useful for a wider range of interactions. From the pragmatic
perspective, becoming more integral through acknowledging complexity and enabling
emergence, and more integrative through building capacity and encouraging holism, is
more useful because it enables a broader view of value creation, supported by this wider
range of interactions. While value from this perspective may be hard to measure with
traditional quantitative approaches that have an ontological view of reality that is
unequivocal, more qualitative, narrative perspectives may assist with apprehending the
worth of these approaches to support a business case for social responsibility.
Page 24 of 37

Responsibility
Conclusions
We began with the view that managing a business enterprise is an increasingly complex
task: that factors bearing upon the successful operation of a business are multiple, often
non‐linear (and therefore unpredictable), and inextricably entwined with the needs of a
global society. We suggested that a ‘better business case’ for CSR must reflect the
changing conditions for business at a global level. We have drawn three
recommendations in this chapter for conceiving a more robust, nuanced, and compelling
CSR business case: acknowledge system complexity (move from reductive, to pluralistic,
to integral conceptions of the business and value creation), build integrative capacity (in
conceiving of the locus of value creation, from corporate, to value‐based communities, to
seeking an integral commons), and taking a pragmatic approach (encouraging
managerial experimentation with new business models for value creation).
If the four modes of value creation in CSR are viewed along a holarchic progression,
where each is inclusive of the last, and if CSR objectives are defined integratively, as
creating simultaneous value for organizations and society, and if the business case for
CSR is framed as a pragmatic, experimental pursuit toward (p. 106) a better society and
better organizations, then the business case for CSR would be a relevant concept, and
would look quite different than it does currently. The case for socially responsible
thinking and action would extend beyond the economic business case. It would attempt to
connect the identity of the organization and of individual members, and it would be an
argument for a more richly and deeply conceived notion of value creation.
References
A D A M , C.
S A. 2002. ‘Internal Organizational Factors Influencing Corporate Social and
Ethical Reporting: Beyond Current Theorising’. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 15(2): 223–50.
Alkhafaji, A. F. 1989. A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Governance: Managing in a

Dynamic Environment. New York: Quorum.
A N D E R S , O J.N C., and F R A N K , L A.E W. 1980. ‘Voluntary Social Reporting: An Iso‐Beta

Portfolio Analysis’. The Accounting Review, 55: 467–79.
Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action

Perspective. Reading, Mass.: Addison‐Wesley.
Page 25 of 37

Responsibility
A U P P E R , K.
L E E., C A R R ,O A.
L B., and H A T F I ,E J.L D.
D 1985. ‘An Empirical Examination of the
Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability’. Academy of
Management Journal, 28(2): 446–63.
B A N S ,A P.,
L and R O T , H K. 2000. ‘Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological
Responsiveness’. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 717–36.
B A R N E , T M.
T L., and S A L O M ,O R.
N M. 2003. ‘Throwing a Curve at Socially Responsible
Investing Research’. Organization & Environment, 16(3): 381–9.
B ,E J.Y B. 1991. ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’. Journal of

A R N
Management, 17(1): 99–120.
—— and H A N S ,E M.
N H. 1994. ‘Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitve Advantage’.
Strategic Management Journal, 15: 175–90.
Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in
the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
B L., W I C K, A.
E S C., K O T H , S.,
R A and J O N ,E T.
M A , S.
S M. 1999. ‘Does Stakeholder Orientation
N
Matter? The Relationship between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial
Performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 488–506.
B H A T T A C H A , R C.Y B.,
A and S E , N S. 2004. ‘Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How
Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives’. Californial Management Review,
47(1): 9–24.
B E., and D U N F ,E T.
O W I , N.
E W. 2002. ‘Confronting Morality in Markets’. Journal of
E
Business Ethics, 38(4): 381–93.
Brown, L. D., and Ashman, D. 1998. ‘Social Capital, Mutual Influence and Social Learning
in Intersectoral Problem Solving’, in D. D. Cooperrider (ed.), Organizational Dimensions
of Global Change. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage: 139–67.
B R O W , N T. J., and D A C ,I P.
N A. 1997. ‘The Company and the Product: Corporate
Associations and Consumer Product Responses’. Journal of Marketing, 61: 68–84.
B , F.,
H and W A L T ,E F.
R R 2005. ‘The Keys to Rethinking Corporate Philanthropy’. MIT
U C
Sloan Management Review, 47(1): 49–55.
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.
Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Page 26 of 37

Responsibility
C A L T ,O J.N M., and L A , D L. J. 1995. ‘Social Contracting as a Trust‐Building Process of

Network Governance’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5: 271–96.
C A R R O , L A.L 1979. ‘A Three Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social

Performance’. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497–505.
—— 1991. ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral

Management of Organizational Stakeholders’. Business Horizons, 34: 39–48.
—— 1999. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct’.

Business & Society, 38(3): 268–95.
C A S H O ,R B.
E 2002. ‘Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How
Non‐state Market Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule‐Making Authority’.

Governance, 15(4): 503–29.
Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. New

York: Routledge.
C O C H R ,A P.
N L., and W O O ,D R. A. 1984. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial
Performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 42–56.
C O L B E , R B.T A. 2004. ‘The Complex Resource‐Based View: Implications for Theory and
Practice in Strategic Human Resource Management’. Academy of Management Review,
29(3): 341–58.
Colbert, B. A., Kurucz, E. C. and Wheeler, D., forthcoming 2008. Sustainability

Conversations: Contested Conceptions and Mesodynamic Tensions. Wilfrid Laurier
University.
Committee for Economic Development (CED) 1971. Social Responsibilities of Business

Corporations. New York: Committee for Economic Development.
C O , L B.,
L and S H A P I , R A.O C. 1987. ‘Corporate Stakeholders and Corporate Finance’.
R N E
Financial Management, 16: 5–14.
C R A N , A.
E 2001. ‘Unpacking the Ethical Product’. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4): 361–
73.
—— M A T T ,E D.,
N and M O O ,N J. 2004. ‘Stakeholders as Citizens? Rethinking Rights,
Participation and Democracy’. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 107–22.
D ,I K.
S 1973. ‘The Case for and against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities’.
A V
Academy of Management Journal, 16: 312–22.
Page 27 of 37

Responsibility
D E G. A., G R O E N E W E G , P.,
E N and H O N , D F. den 2005. ‘A Bibliometric Analysis of 30
B A K K , E F.
R
Years of Research and Theory on Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social
Performance’. Business and Society, 44: 283–317.
, E. 2005. ‘Democracy Matters in Corporate Accountability: A Carribean Case

Study’. Critical Perspectives on Accounting Proceedings, City University of New York.
Domini, A. 2001. Socially Responsible Investing: Making a Difference and Making Money.
Chicago: Dearborn Trade.
D O N A L D S , O T.,
N and P R E S T , O L.N E. 1995. ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation:
Concepts, Evidence, Implications’. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.
D R I V , E M.
R 2006. ‘Beyond the Stalemate of Economics versus Ethics: Corporate Social
Responsibility and the Discourse of the Organizational Self’. Journal of Business Ethics,
66: 337–56.
D R U M W R I G , H M.
T 1996. ‘Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role of Non‐
economic Criteria’. Journal of Marketing, 60: 71–87.
Elkington, J. 1998. Cannibals with Forks. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.
F O M B R ,U C.
N J., and S H A N L , E M.
Y (1990). ‘What's in a Name? Reputation Building and
Corporate Strategy’. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233–58.
Frankel, C. 1998. In Earth's Company. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
F R E D E R ,I W.
C K 1998. ‘Creatures, Corporations, Communities, Chaos, Complexity: A
Naturalogical View of the Corporate Social Role’. Business Ethics, 37(4): 358–89.
F R E E D M , A M.,
N and J A G , G B.I 1982. ‘Pollution Disclosures, Pollution Performance and
Economic Performance’. Omega, 10(2): 167–76.
Freeman, R. E. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
—— 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice‐Hall.
—— 2000. ‘Business Ethics at the Millennium’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1): 169–80.
—— and L I E D T , J.
K A 1991. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach’. Business
Horizons, 34: 92–8.
Page 28 of 37

Responsibility
—— 1970. ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’. New York
Times Magazine: 32–3, 122, 124, 126.
G A R R I , G E.,
A and M E L , ÉD. 2004. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the
Territory’. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51–71.
G E L , D.
B S., and S T R A W S , E J.R A. 2001. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial
Disclosures: An Alternative Explanation for Increased Disclosure’. Journal of Business
Ethics, 33(1): 1–13.
G ,R R.
E T 2004. ‘Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal’.
P H A
Academy of Management, 47(4): 454–62.
G , I D.A 2003. ‘Business Organzation as Instrument of Social Responsibility.’

I O
Organization, 10(3): 435–8.
G O D F R , E P.Y 2005. ‘The Relationship between Corporate Philanthropy and Shareholder

Wealth: A Risk Management Perspecitve’. Academy of Managment Review, 30(4): 777–
98.
G R A V ,E S.
S B., and W A D D O C, S.
K A. 1994. ‘Institutional Owners and Corporate Social
Performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1034–46.
G R I F F , J.
I J.,
N and M O H O , N J. F. 1997. ‘The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate
Financial Performance Debate: Twenty‐Five Years of Incomparable Research’. Business
and Society, 36(1): 5–31.
H A I G , M.,
H and J O N ,E M.
S T. (2006). ‘The Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility: A
Critical Review’. The Business Review, Cambridge, 5(2): 245–51.
H A R R I S , OJ. N S., and S T J O , H C.

N H. (1996). ‘Managing and Partnering with External
Stakeholders’. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2): 46–61.
H A R , S.
T L. 1995. ‘A Natural‐Resource‐Based View of the Firm’. Academy of Management
Journal, 20(4): 986–1014.
—— 1997. ‘Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World’. Harvard Business

Review, 75(1): 66–76.
—— 2005. Capitalism at the Crossroads: The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving

the World's most Difficult Problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
Page 29 of 37

Responsibility
—— and C H R I S T E N , S C.E M.
N 2002. ‘The Great Leap: Driving Innovation from the Base of
the Pyramid’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1): 51–7.
—— and M I L S T ,E M.
I N B. 1999. ‘Global Sustainability and the Creative Destruction of
Industries’. Sloan Management Review, 41(1): 23–33.
—— —— 2003. ‘Creating Sustainable Value’. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2):

56–69.
—— and S H A R M , S.
A 2004. ‘Engaging Fringe Stakeholders for Competitive Imagination’.
Academy of Managment Executive, 18(1): 7–18.
H I L, C.
L W. L. 1995. ‘National Institutional Structures, Transaction Cost Economizing and
Competitive Advantage: The Case of Japan’. Organization Science, 6: 119–31.
H I L L M , A A.N J., and K E I , G.

M D. 2001. ‘Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and
Social Issues: What's the Bottom Line?’ Strategic Management Journal, 22: 125–39.
Jacobs, M. 1999. ‘Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept’, in A. Dobson (ed.),

Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 21–45.
J E N S , E M.
N C. 2002. ‘Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Objective
Function’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 235–56.
J O N ,E T.
S M. 1995. ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and
Economics’. Academy of Management Review, 20: 404–37.
J O Y N ,E B.R E., and P A Y ,N D.

E 2002. ‘Evolution and Implementation: A Study of Values,
Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility’. Journal of Business Ethics, 41: 297–
311.
Kauffman, S. A. 1992. Origins of Order: Self‐Organization and Selection in Evolution.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kedia, B., and Kuntz, E. C. 1981. ‘The Context of Social Performance: An Empirical Study
of Texas Banks’, in L. E. Preston (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and
Policy. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Kinder, P., Lyderberg, S., and Domini, A. 1993. Investing for Good: Making Money while
Being Socially Responsible. New York: Harper‐Business.
Page 30 of 37

Responsibility
K I N , A.,
G and L E N O , M.
X 2000. ‘Industry Self‐regulation without Sanctions: The Chemical
Industry's Responsible Care Program’. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 698–716.
—— —— 2001. ‘Does it Really Pay to be Green? An Emprical Study of Firm Environmental

and Financial Performance’. The Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1): 105–16.
K L E ,I K.
N J., D A N S E R E , F.,
A U and H A L , R.
L J. 1994. ‘Levels Issues in Theory Development,
Data Collection and Analysis’. Academy of Management Review, 19(2): 195–229.
K O , K P., V A N D E R W I , E T.,
L EM C K E N ,N R.,
A and B R O W , N A. 2001. ‘A Corporate Social
Responsibility Audit within a Quality Management Framework’. Journal of Business
Ethics, 31(4): 285–97.
Lankoski, L. 2000. ‘Determinants of Environmental Profit: An Analysis of the Firm‐Level

Relationship between Environmental Performance and Economic Performance’.
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management. Helsinki: University of
Technology.
L E R N ,E L.
R D., and F R Y X E , G.
L L E. 1988. ‘An Empirical Study of the Predictors of Corporate
Social Performance: A Multi‐dimensional Analysis’. Journal of Business Ethics, 7: 951–9.
L I ,T R.
Z A. 1996. ‘A Resource‐Based View of the Socially Responsible Firm: Stakeholder
Interdependence, Ethical Awareness and Issue Responsiveness as Strategic Assets’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 15: 1355–63.
L , N A.,
S L O V I , N L.S H., and H A W K E , P.
O V N 1999. ‘A Road map for Natural Capitalism’.
I
Harvard Business Review, May: 145–58.
M A and L E W ,I A. C K E N Z , C.,
S 1999. ‘Morals and Markets: The Case of Ethical Investing’.
I E
Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(3): 439–52.
M C W I L L I ,A A.,
M S and S I E G , E D.L 2001. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm
Perspective’. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117–27.
Margolis, J. D., and Walsh, J. P. 2001. People and Profits? The Search for a Link between
a Company's Social and Financial Performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
—— —— 2003. ‘Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’.

Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268–305.
M A T T ,E D.,
N C R A N , A.,
E and C H A P P , L W.
E 2003. ‘Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of
Corporate Citizenship’. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(1–2): 109–20.
Page 31 of 37

Responsibility
M A T T I N ,G J.L E.,
Y and B E R M A , S.
N L. 2006. ‘Measurement of Corporate Social Action:
Discovering Taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini Ratings Data’. Business and
Society, 45(1): 20–46.
M I T C H E , R.,
L L A G L , B.
E and W O O ,D D. 1997. ‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification
and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’. Academy of
Management Review, 22(4): 853–86.
M U R R A , K.
Y B., and M O N T A N A , RJ. I R. 1986. ‘Strategic Management of the Socially
Responsible Firm: Integrating Management and Marketing Theory’. Academy of
O G D E , S.,
N and W A T S O , R.
N 1999. ‘Corporate Performance and Stakeholder Management:
Balancing Shareholder and Customer Interests in the U.K. Privatized Water Industry’.
Academy of Managment Journal, 42(5): 526–38.
O R L I T ,Z M.,
K Y S C H M I , D F.T L., and R Y N ,E S.
S 2003. ‘Corporate Social and Financial
Performance: A Meta‐Analysis’. Organization Studies, 24: 403–42.
P A V , M.
A L., and K R A U ,S J.Z 1996. ‘The Association between Corporate Social Responsibility
and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost’. Journal of Business Ethics, 15:
321–57.
P E A T T , K.
1998. ‘Golden Goose or Wild Goose? The Hunt for the Green Consumer’. I E
Business Strategy and the Environment, 10: 187–99.
Perrow, C. 2002. Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of Corporate
Captialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
P E T R I , J.
C K and Q U I N , J.
N 2001. ‘The Challenge of Leadership Accountability for Integrity
Capacity as a Strategic Asset’. Journal of Business Ethics, 34: 331–43.
Pfeffer, J. 1985. ‘Organizations and Organization Theory’, in G. L. E. Aronson (ed.),

Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House, vol. 1: 379–440.
P ,E M.
R E. and K R A M E , M.
O R R. 1999. ‘Philanthropy's New Agenda: Creating Value’.
R T
Harvard Business Review, Nov.–Dec.: 121–30.
—— —— 2002. ‘The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’. Harvard Business

Review, Dec.: 56–68.
—— and V A N D E R L I , C.
N D E1995. ‘Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate’. Harvard
Business Review, 73(5): 120–33.
Page 32 of 37

Responsibility
P ,E B.,
R and S C H M I , D W.
O T 1992. ‘Values and the American Manager’. California
S N
Prahalad, C. K. 2004. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty
through Profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
—— and H A M M O N , D A. 2002. ‘Serving the World's Poor, Profitably’. Harvard Business

Review, 80(9): 48–58.
—— and H A R , S.
T L. 2002. ‘The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’. Strategy+Business,
26: 54–67.
P R E S T , O L.N E., and O ' B A N N , O D.N P. 1997. ‘The Corporate Social‐Financial Performance
Relationship: A Typology and Analysis’. Business and Society, 35(4): 419–29.
Q and J O N ,E T.
U I N , D.,
S 1995. ‘An Agent Morality View of Business Policy’. Academy of
N
R I O R D , A C.N M., G A T E W O ,O R.
D D., and B I ,L J.L B. 1997. ‘Corporate Image: Employee
Reactions and Implications for Managing Corporate Social Performance’. Journal of
Business Ethics, 16(4): 401–12.
R O M A , N R. M., H A Y I B , O S.,
R and A G L , B.
E 1999. ‘The Relationship between Social and
Financial Performance: Repainting a Portrait’. Business in Society, 38(1): 109–25.
R ,E T.,
Y and B E R M A , S.
O N 2000. ‘A Brand New Brand of Corporate Social Performance’.
W L
Business & Society, 39(4): 397–418.
R U S S , M.
O V., and F O U ,T P.
S A. 1997. ‘A Resource‐Based Perspective on Corporate
Environmental Performance and Profitability’. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 534–

59.
S A L Z M A , N O.,
N , A., and S T E G ,E U.
R 2005. ‘The Business Case for Corporate
Sustainability: Literature Review and Options’. European Management Journal, 23(1): 27–
36.
S C H M I D T A L B I , N H.,
G E and
R F R E E M ,A S.
N J. 2000. ‘Corporate Social Performance and
Attractiveness as an Employer to Different Job Seeking Populations’. Journal of Business

Ethics, 28(3): 243–53.
S E , N S., and B H A T T A C H A , R C.Y B.

A 2001. ‘Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better?
Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility’. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(2): 225–44.
Page 33 of 37

Responsibility
S E T ,H S.I P. 1979. ‘A Conceptual Framework for Environmental Analysis of Social Issues
and Evaluation of Business Response Patterns’. Academy of Management Review, 4: 63–
74.
Smith, N. C. 1990. Morality and the Market: Consumer Pressure for Corporate
Accountability. London: Routledge.
—— 1994. ‘The New Corporate Philanthropy’. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), May–June:
105–16.
—— 2003. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?’ California Management

Review, 45(4): 52–76.
Solomon, R. C. 1997. It's Good Business. Lanham, Md. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
Inc.
—— 2004. ‘Aristotle, Ethics and Business Organizations’. Organization Studies, 25(6):

1021–43.
S T , C P.K A., and S T A N W I , C S.K D. 1998. ‘The Relationship between Corporate Social
A N W I
Performance and Organizational Size, Financial Performance, and Environmental

Performance: An Empirical Examination’. Journal of Business Ethics, 17: 195–204.
S T I G L , G.
E R J. 1962. ‘Information in the Labor Market’. Journal of Political Economy, 70:
49–73.
S T O R M ,E F.
R 2003. ‘Making the Shift: Moving from “Ethics Pays” to an Inter‐Systems
Model of Business’. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4): 279–88.
S ,R D.,
Y and P R I ,C T.E J. 2006. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Risk Management?’
T O
The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22: 39–51.
S W A N S ,O C.
N 1995. ‘Addressing a Theoretical Problem by Reorienting the Corporate Social
Performance Model’. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 43–64.
—— 1999. ‘Towards an Integrative Theory of Business and Society: A Research Strategy

for Corporate Social Performance’. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 506–21.
T R E V I , N L.O K., and W E A V ,E G.

R R. 1994. ‘Normative and Empirical Business Ethics:
Separation, Marriage of Convenience, or Marriage of Necessity?’ Business Ethics
Quarterly, 4: 129–43.
Page 34 of 37

Responsibility
T U R B ,A D.
N B. and G R E E N I , ND.G W. 1997. ‘Corporate Social Performance and
Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees’. Academy of Managment
Journal, 40: 658–72.
V A 2003. ‘Concepts and Defintions of CSR and Corporate, Sustainability’.

N M A R R E W , I M.
J K
Journal of Business Ethics, 44: 95–105.
V A R A D A R A , J P.A R.,
N and M E N O , N A. 1988. ‘Cause‐Related Marketing—A Coalignment of
Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy’. Journal of Marketing, 52(3): 58–74.
V O G E, D.
L J. 2005. ‘Is There a Market for Virtue? The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility’. California Management Review, 47(4): 19–45.
W ,L S.
L J. 2002. ‘Six Societal Learning Concepts for a New Era of Engagement’.
A D D E
Reflections, 3(4): 18–26.
W A D D O C, S.,
K B O D W E ,L C.,
L and G R A V ,E S.
S 2002. ‘Responsibility: The New Business
Imperative’. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2): 132–48.
—— and G R A V ,E S.
S B. (1997a). ‘The Corporate Social Peformance‐Financial Performance
Link’. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 303–19.
—— —— (1997b). ‘Quality of Management and Quality of Stakeholder Relationships: Are

They Synonymous?’ Business & Society, 36(3): 250–79.
W ,E D.,
RH C O L B E , R B.
T A., and F R E E M ,A R.
E E N E. 2003. ‘Focusing on Value: Reconciling
L
Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability and a Stakeholder Approach in a Network

World’. Journal of General Management, 28(3): 1–28.
—— and G R A Y S ,O D.
N 2001. ‘Business and its Stakeholders’. Journal of Business Ethics, 32:
101–6.
—— McKague, K., Thomson, J., Davies, R., Medalye, J., and Prada, M. 2005. ‘Creating
Sustainable Local Enterprise Networks’. MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall: 33–40.
—— and Sillanpaa, M. 1997. The Stakeholder Corporation: A Blueprint for Maximising

Stakeholder Value. London: Pitman.
—— —— 1998. ‘Including the Stakeholders: The Business Case’. Long Range Planning,
31(2): 201–10.
W I C K, A.
S C., B E R M A , S.
N L., and J O N ,E T.
S M. 1999. ‘The Structure of Optimal Trust: Moral
and Strategic Implications’. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 99–116.
Page 35 of 37

Responsibility
—— and F R E E M ,A R.
N E. 1998. ‘Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism,
Anti‐positivism, and the Search for Ethics’. Organization Science, 9: 123–40.
Wilber, K. 1998. The Essential Ken Wilber: An Introductory Reader. Boston: Shambhala.
—— 2000. A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and
Spirtuality. Boston: Shambhala.
W O,D D. 1991. ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’. Academy of Management

O
Review, 16: 691–718.
Notes:
(1) The first examples of ‘cooperative’ enterprise occurred in the early years of the 19th
century in Scotland and England (Wheeler and Sillanpää, 1997).
Elizabeth C. Kurucz
Elizabeth C. Kurucz (Ph.D., York University) is Assistant Professor of Organizational
Behaviour and Sustainable Commerce in the Department of Business, College of
Management and Economics at the University of Guelph. Her research in
Organizational Behaviour spans business, government, and civil society, and is
focused on how organizational mindsets facilitate or inhibit progress toward more
sustainable practice.
Barry A. Colbert
Barry A. Colbert (Ph.D., York University) is an Assistant Professor of Policy at the
School of Business and Economics at Wilfred Laurier University in Canada. His work
has been published in Academy of Management Review, the Journal of General
Management, and Human Resource Planning. His research is centered on the ways
and means by which organizations align a vision for sustainability, business strategy,
and the strategic development of human capital.
David Wheeler
David Wheeler is Dean of Management, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada.
He holds a Ph.D. in Applied Microbiology from the University of Surrey (UK). Dr
Wheeler's research interests focus on the role of the private sector in international
development, corporate strategy, governance and sustainability, and organizational
change and sustainability. He was the principal author of The Stakeholder
Corporation (Pitman), and has published more than 70 articles in the Science,
Page 36 of 37

Responsibility
Medicine, and Management literatures. Dr. Wheeler is currently Co‐chair of the
United Nations Development Program Project on case writing in private sector
development. He is Chair of the Foundation for Sustainable Enterprise and
Development and a board member of Zero Footprint.
Page 37 of 37

Oxfordhb 9780199211593 e 004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oxfordhb 9780199211593 e 004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oxfordhb 9780199211593 e 004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Business Case for Corporate Social

Elizabeth C. Kurucz, Barry A. Colbert, and David Wheeler

Abstract and Keywords

(Manufacturing Executive, 2005).

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

In a meta‐analysis of CSP–CFP studies correcting for sampling error and measurement

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Four General Types of the Business Case for CSR

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

So here we have an apparent paradox: critics of business—and global business leaders

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Cost and Risk Reduction: Optimization Subject to Constraints

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

A focus on enlightened value maximization (Jensen, 2002) implies that long‐term

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Competitive Advantage: Adapting and Leveraging Opportunities

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

(p. 90) Reputation and Legitimacy: Building a Responsible Brand

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Synergistic Value Creation: Seeking Win‐Win‐Win Outcomes

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

In summary, approaches advocating synergistic value creation are focused on seeking

Summary of Section: Four General Types of the Business Case

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Underlying Characteristics and Basic Assumptions of the Four

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Competitive Competitive Reputation Synergistic

Key Value Trading: Adapting: A Aligning: Relating:

Central role of Economic Economic Political Actor Social Actor

Level of Theory Organization Industry Political and Societal

Assumed Linear Complicated Complex Self‐

Dominant Logic Normative Normative Normative Cognitive

Ontological Unequivocal Unequivocal Equivocal Equivocal

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Epistemological Positivism Post‐ Social Pragmatism

Key Proposition for Value Creation

Central Actor Role for Business

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Main Level of Theorizing

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Assumed Nature of System Interactions

(p. 96) Dominant Logic Frame

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Relevant Ontological and Epistemological Stance

Reputation and legitimacy approaches are built on an equivocal, constructivist ontology

Underlying Characteristics and Assumptions: Summary

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

General Critiques of the Business Case for CSR

Level of Justification: Organization and Society

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Logic of Justification: Economic, Ethical, Political, Social

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Grounds of Justification: Positivist, Anti‐positivist, and Pragmatist

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Building a Better Business Case for CSR: Addressing the

Different authors have outlined historical eras in CSR in terms of a sequence of

Subscriber: Michigan State University Library; date: 28 February 2016

Eras of CSR and Development in Human Systems

Click to view larger