Academy of Management Perspectives
F R O M
T H E
E D I T O R S
Is the Socially Responsible Corporation a Myth? The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Corporate Social Responsibility by Timothy M. Devinney
Despite differences of opinion about the efficacy of corporate social responsibility, there is a general consensus among academics, policy makers, and practitioners that corporations operate with a social sanction that requires that they operate within the norms and mores of the societies in which they exist. In this article I argue that the notion of a socially responsible corporation is potentially an oxymoron because of the naturally conflicted nature of the corporation. This has profound implications for our understanding of corporate social responsibility, what we view as the relevant issues relating to it, and how we investigate its role and impact.
Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one’s neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it on a star. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary (1911)
t is a central tenet of advocates of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) that corporations receive a social sanction from society that requires that they, in return, contribute to the growth and development of that society. There is little argument as to the existence of this sanction but considerable debate as to whether it requires more of the corporation than the obvious: enhancing the society by creating and delivering products and services consumers want, providing
“From the Editors” is a new section that will run intermittently in an effort to provide our editorial team, including our Editorial Board members, an opportunity to comment on timely topics.
employment and career opportunities for employees, developing markets for suppliers, and paying taxes to governments and returns to shareholders and other claimants on the rents generated by the corporation. For those with a narrow conception of CSR, the corporation has little, if any, obligation to the society other than the creation of economic rents that can accrue to the stakeholders with recognized rights to those rents. For those with an expansive view of CSR, the corporation should serve as an instrument of public policy by other means. For those seeking a compromise, CSR is something in between these two extremes. The discourse between the two extremes has, to some extent, taken on the characteristic of a religious debate, since little fact or science has been brought to bear that would reveal what the costs and benefits of CSR truly are. This has arisen not simply because many of those involved in the debate have a vested interest in the outcome and
Timothy M. Devinney (T.Devinney@unsw.edu.au) is Professor of Strategy in the School of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at the Australian School of Business. Copyright by the Academy of Management; all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, e-mailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use only.
hence want to control the rules of the debate, but more because the definition of CSR has itself been malleable (see, e.g., Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007). To those with a more corporatist orientation, CSR includes activities such as mandated environmental and occupational health and safety practices, but excludes claims by outside stakeholders on the rents of the firm (Banerjee, 2007). To those with a more expansive viewpoint, CSR involves corporations acting on behalf of the disadvantaged and demands active claims on rents by broad sections of the society, however defined. Hence, in a Kuhnian...
References: Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836 – 863. Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. (2003). What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3), 281–304. Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. (2008). Do social product features have value to consumers? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 183–191. Banerjee, S. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar. Baron, D. P. (2000). Business and its environment (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baumol, W. J. (1996). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), 3–22. Baumol, W. J., Litan, R. E., & Schramm, C. J. (2007). Good capitalism, bad capitalism and the economics of growth and prosperity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bierce, A. (1911). The devil’s dictionary. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www.gutenberg. org/etext/972. Brugmann, J., & Prahalad, C. K. (2007). Cocreating business’s new social impact. Harvard Business Review, (February), 1–13. Chen, J. C., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (in press). Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics. Dean, T. J., & Brown, R. J. (1995). Pollution regulation as a barrier to new firm entry: Initial evidence and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 288 –303. De Bakker, F. G. A., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business and Society, 44(3), 283– 317. Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G., & Birtchnell, T. (in press). The other CSR: Consumer social responsibility. Stanford Social Innovation Review. de Winter, R. (2001). The anti-sweatshop movement: Constructing corporate moral agency in the global apparel industry. Ethics and International Affairs, 15(2), 99 –117. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford, England: Capstone. Entine, J. (2009, February). The next catastrophe. Reason. Retrieved April 19, 2009, from http://www.reason.com/ news/printer/130843.html. Fisman, R., Heal, G., & Nair, V. B. (2007). Social responsibility: Doing well by doing good? (Working paper). New York: Columbia University. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, pp. 1– 6.
Geczy, C., Stambaugh, R. F., & Levin, D. (2005). Investing in socially responsible mutual funds (Working Paper). Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://finance. wharton.upenn.edu/rlwctr/papers/0402.pdf. Gogoi, P. (2006, March 29). Wal-Mart’s organic offensive. Business Week, http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/ dnflash/mar2006/nf20060329_6971.htm. Gogoi, P. (2007, April 12). Organics: A poor harvest for WalMart. Business Week, http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/ dnflash/content/apr2007/db20070412_005673.htm. Gunther, M. (2006, July 31). The green machine. Fortune, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/ 2006/08/07/8382593/index.htm. Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2007). Why do firms engage in corporate social responsibility? (Working Paper). Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara University. Hunt, T. (2008, April 17). The business of giving: A new class of corporate philanthropists would have us believe charity is post-political. Far from it. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2008/apr/17/3. Jacobs, D. L. (1990, September 30). Managing: Corporate donations under attack. New York Times, section 3, p. 23. Kristof, N. D. (2002, May 21). Following God abroad. New York Times, p. A21. Liston-Heyes, C., & Ceton, G. C. (2007). Corporate social performance and politics: Do liberals do more? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 25(May), 95–108. Maloney, M. T., & McCormick, R. E. (1982). A positive theory of environmental quality regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 25(1), 99 –123. Margolis, J. D., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2008). Doing well by doing good: Don’t count on it. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 19. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on corporate social and financial performance (Working Paper). Boston: Harvard Business School. McClintock, B. (1999). The multinational corporation and social justice: Experiments in supranational governance. Review of Social Economy, 52(4), 507–521. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603– 609. Mills, G. (2007, November 2). The new imperialists. International Herald Tribune. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. New York: Aldine-Atherton. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. R. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403– 41. Paull, J. (2006). The farm as organism: The foundational idea of organic agriculture. Journal of Bio-Dynamics Tasmania, 83, 14 –18. Prior, D., Surroca, J., & Tribo, J. A. (2008). Are socially responsible managers really ethical? Exploring the rela-
Academy of Management Perspectives
tionship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(3), 160 –177. Reich, R. B. (2007). Supercapitalism. New York: Vintage Books. Reinhardt, F. L., Yao, D. A., & Egawa, M. (2006). Toyota Motor Corporation: Launching Prius (HBS Case 9-706458). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Renneboog, L., ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2007a). The price of ethics: Evidence from socially responsible mutual funds (Finance Working Paper 168/2007). Brussels, Belgium: European Corporate Governance Institute. Renneboog, L., ter Horst, J. & Zhang, C. (2007b). Socially responsible investments: Methodology, risk exposure and performance (Finance Working Paper 175/2007). Brussels, Belgium: European Corporate Governance Institute. Smith, A. (1904). Of wages and profit in the different
employments of labour and stock. In E. Cannan (Ed., 1904), An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (Book I, Chapter X, paragraph I.10.82). Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN4.html. Statman, M. (2007). Socially responsible investments. (Working Paper). Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara University, Department of Finance. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://ssrn.com/abstract 995271. Wang, H., Choi, J., & Li, J. T. (2008). Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science, 19(1), 143–159. Yunus, M. (2008). Creating a world without poverty. New York: Public Affairs. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect. New York: Random House.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document