Must Milton Friedman Embrace Stakeholder Theory?

Milton Friedman famously stated that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, a position now known as the shareholder model of business. Subsequently, the stakeholder model, associated with Edward Freeman, has been widely seen as a heuristically stronger theory of the responsibilities of the firm to the society in which it is situated. Friedman's position, nevertheless, has retained currency among many business thinkers. In this article, we argue that Friedman's economic writings assume an economy in which businesses operate under the protections of limited liability, which allows corporations to privatize their gains while externalizing their losses. By accepting limited liability, Friedman must also accept a view of business as embedded in social interdependency, which serves as the logical and moral foundation for corporate social responsibility (CSR). To achieve consistency with his economic principles, Friedman must either abandon limited liability or modify his doctrine on CSR and his related shareholder model of business.     

Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting as Substantive and Symbolic Behavior: A Multilevel Theoretical Analysis

This article describes a multilevel theoretical framework that examines the multiple causes of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting in the social environment of business. We argue that substantive and/or symbolic reporting flows from individual‐, aggregate‐, organizational‐, and institution‐level phenomena, and is thus a complex outcome of CSR and corporate social performance (CSP). Theoretical lenses range from reinforcement theory at the microlevel to legitimacy and stakeholder theories at the macrolevel, and include a discussion of the emergence of lower‐level CSR‐relevant characteristics to higher level constructs. Our goal is to clarify how this behavior develops from microlevel, mesolevel, and macrolevel processes with a view toward assisting corporations to better enact CSR reporting, and their stakeholders to effectively promote substantive reporting behavior.     

Sustaining the Financial Value of Global CSR: Reconciling Corporate and Stakeholder Interests in a Less Regulated Environment

In this article we examine the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm value. This line of research is important since firms continue to invest in CSR even though past studies reveal a limited linkage between financial value and CSR. However, the business case for CSR or “doing good while making a profit,” appears to be advancing within the business ethics literature as a preferred conception of CSR. We conjecture that the greater unification and refinement of both profit maximization and stakeholder interests through corporate acts, not statements alone, will sustain the financial value of CSR in a less regulated global business environment. We study the triangle of what companies say, what companies do, and firm financial performance. We analyze Fortune 250 firms and find a positive association between what companies do based on KLD Research and Analytics, Inc. (KLD) ratings, and what companies state about ethics in their CSR statements. We then employ regression analysis and find that companies’ socially responsible acts are positively associated with overall firm value and financial performance. Yet we do not find a statistically significant association between what companies say regarding ethics in their CSR statements and their financial outcomes. These results suggest that firm value and financial performance is associated with what companies do and not what they say. Our results seem to be driven by multinational corporations (MNCs) and not by non‐MNCs. This is possibly because MNCs generally operate in a less regulated global business environment that often necessitates strong ethical corporate leadership to further stakeholder interests. Overall, these results help reconcile corporate and stakeholder objectives since evidence of a link between financial performance and doing good sustains global CSR.     

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Value Creation among Large Firms: Lessons from the Spanish Experience

Can corporate social responsibility (CSR) be a source of good and a wellspring of innovation, competitive advantage and value creation for the firm? Although CEOs and government leaders insist in public that CSR projects create value for the firm, privately they admit that they do not know if CSR pays off. To address this question and drawing on experience for the Spanish context, we test one of the few efforts to model how the strategic management of CSR may contribute to improving firm profitability (Burke and Logsdon, 1996). To do this, we examine the impact of three strategic CSR variables – visibility, appropriability, and voluntarism – on value creation among large Spanish corporations. The conclusions from these findings suggest that managers need to understand how CSR is similar to and different from other traditional corporate market activities if they are to pursue value creation through CSR. We also suggest avenues for future research to explain how CSR may be integrated into firm processes to create resources (assets) and capabilities (routines) that may lead to competitive advantage and superior economic performance.     

企业社会责任与企业伦理关系分析

企业社会责任与企业伦理是何关系既是一个理论问题,也是一个现实问题。跳出仅仅从概念视角分析文献中实际采用的定义的局限,提出“3+2”的分析框架,即从三个视角(基本概念、学科领域和社会运动)、两个层面(现实层面和理论层面)分析企业社会责任和企业伦理的关系。分析表明:企业社会责任概念与企业伦理概念之间的关系,不同于企业社会责任领域与企业伦理领域之间的关系,也不同于企业社会责任运动与企业伦理运动之间的关系;同样是企业社会责任和企业伦理概念之间、领域之间和运动之间的关系,现实层面的关系和理论层面的关系也有差异;企业社会责任和企业伦理既非互不相干,亦非完全等同,也不是简单的一个包含另一个的关系,而是既有区别,又有联系的关系。     

Corporate Social Responsibility through Cross‐sector Partnerships: Implications for Civil Society,the State,and the Corporate Sector in India

Corporations are increasingly forced to widen their agendas to include social and environmental concerns, or corporate social responsibility (CSR). This development has been recorded in the current academic debate, and the views regarding its implications for business, the state, and civil society diverge. However, there is agreement within the CSR and corporate governance literatures that there is a lack of thorough empirical studies of these effects. Based on a case study of the multinational wind energy company Suzlon Energy's CSR projects in rural India, this article contends that CSR projects implemented through cross‐sector partnerships can help to build the capacities of civil society organizations (CSOs). Although the risk of corporate steering of the civil society agenda is reduced when CSR prioritizes community needs over business imperatives, CSOs tend to bear the highest costs in partnerships, through credibility losses and insecurity concerning project terms and funding, reinforcing the importance of critical cooperation and complementary core competencies in cross‐sector partnerships. The results have implications for the strategies of corporations, CSOs, and governments as well as for the planning of national and international development aid.     

Utilitarian,managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility

Concepts and theories of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have been examined and classified by scholars since the mid‐1970s. However, owing to the evolving meaning of CSR and the huge number of scholars who have begun to analyze the issue in recent years fresh efforts are needed to understand new developments. Since there is a great heterogeneity of theories and approaches, the task remains a very hard one, mainly because heterogeneity derives from multi‐disciplinary diversity. The criterion for selection is to consider the role that theorists confer to the firm. Following this idea, three groups of theories have been discerned: (1) the utilitarian group, in which the corporation is intended as a maximizing ‘black box’ where problems of externalities and social costs emerge; (2) the managerial category, where problems of responsibility are approached from inside the firm (internal perspective); (3) relational theories, or those in which the type of relations between the firm and the environment are at the center of the analysis. The three perspectives allow the reader to understand the most significant differences between the various theories of CSR. The objective is to classify the theories and to draw a map in which group specificities can be made available. This allows scholars to reach a better understanding of corporate–society relations, and enhances developments both in theoretical and empirical terms.     

Discourses about Righting the Business ← → Society Relationship

This article engages the question—what is the right business‐society relationship? We consider three perspectives that seek to address the relationship: corporate social responsibility (CSR), social entrepreneurship (SE), and conscious capitalism (CC). We take a macroapproach considering how commentary about these approaches establishes a direction for corporate practice and its relationship to key stakeholder groups. We argue that these perspectives are ‘D'iscourses that provide arguments for and articulations about the direction of corporate practice and the business‐society relationship. To organize our review of each perspective, and focus our critique, for each we highlight (a) drivers and influencers, (b) core assumptions and defining features, and (c) approaches and exemplars. Although distinct, all emphasize effective business practices as key to meeting social needs. CSR suggests legitimizing business practice; SE relocates business practices; and CC seeks to reimagine/rehabilitate business for social good. Ultimately, we conclude that these Discourses lack a clear communicative focus in terms of decision making within these organizations. We attend to this and other implications, and offer avenues for further research.     

Financial Returns of Corporate Social Responsibility,and the Moral Freedom and Responsibility of Business Leaders

A number of theorists have proposed mechanisms suggesting that corporate social responsibility produces better financial results. Others subscribe to the theory that, realistically, less ethical means are necessary. This article contains an analysis of these perspectives drawing on observations from evolutionary game theory and nature. Based on these analyses, it is concluded that the financial returns of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility (CSR and CSI) are equal on average. The explanation is that CSR and CSI aredriven to a state of equilibrium, because if one or the other were to offer higher profits, it would attract more players who would compete for the best opportunities until there was no difference in average profit. Existing empirical research generally shows a positive correlation between CSR as measured and corporate financial performance. It is argued that what is actually causing that finding is probably not CSR but management skill. More skillful managers, whether actually responsible or irresponsible, are able to obtain both higher profits and greater credit in imperfect measures of CSR. Next it is shown that this theory of equal returns implies greater moral freedom and therefore responsibility for business leaders. It is concluded that this insight can intensify the interest of decent business leaders in vigorously championing CSR.     

Organizational Antecedents of a Mining Firm's Efforts to Reinvent Its CSR: The Case of Golden Star Resources in Ghana1

This article reports a case study of how organizational antecedents, specifically leadership choices, decisions, culture, and organizational learning, impact and construct the corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives of a Canadian mid‐tier mining firm operating in Ghana. The primary objective of the article is to demonstrate, through an in‐depth study of a single case, that organizational‐ and firm‐level antecedents are a powerful tool for understanding how ethical, socially responsible, and community‐relevant behaviors of a mining firm in a developing area come to be constructed. The article thus contributes to the conceptual and applied literatures on CSR by suggesting that much as the voice of moral suasion, advocacy, and critical censure have been important motive forces behind CSR efforts, it seems that the sustainability and community relevance of CSR efforts are linked to identifiable internal response mechanisms that dispose or enable firms to behave in responsible ways.     

Business–NGO Interactions in a Multi‐Stakeholder Context

The main purpose of this paper is to contribute to our understanding of the conditions under which Business–nongovernmental organization (NGO) interactions lead to improvements in corporate social responsibility (CSR), by assessing the role that the stakeholder context of the firm plays in the processes. As a case study it takes an interaction process between one NGO and one company with both collaborative and confrontational traits, spanning eight years and two issue fields, palm oil and soy, which are characterized by varying stakeholder contexts. The analysis demonstrates that the business–NGO interaction induced a change from a direct to an indirect corporate responsibility, and clarifies how interdependencies between the company and other stakeholders than the NGO influenced the interaction. The stakeholder interdependencies vary per issue field: In some issue fields, the stakeholder context allows for effective, collaborative interaction between business and NGO, while in another issue field, characterized by different stakeholder interdependencies, collaborative, constructive interactionbetween the same business and the same NGO is not feasible and, in addition, less effective in terms of CSR than confrontational interaction.     

The Social Dimensions of Business Excellence

In an era of dynamic markets, globalisation, telecommunication and volatile stock markets, the board of directors of listed companies have grown familiar with the pressure of shareholders. Nowadays CEO's discus corporate responsible behaviour and sustainability more often. They feel the pressure of external stakeholders. They are aware of the increasing vulnerability of their corporate reputation, an increasing number of financial institutions start demanding social and environmental criteria — and it is more and more difficult to attract new talented people and at the same time, keeping existing employees satisfied. These developments make companies aware of the social dimensions of their organisation, their corporate identity, their role within society and their duty towards future generations.The business environment is beginning to accept that prosperity, profitability and shareholder value alone do not represent the value of the company. The companies’ ability to grow and to improve continuously is also determined by its social competences, ethical responsibility and environmental contributions. This shift of focus leads to a reorientation of the concept of business excellence. At first, quality management focused on the quality improvement of products and services, later on the processes providing these products. Quality was renamed into business excellence when corporations oriented themselves on the quality of the organisation and the chain (or network or hub) in which it operates. With the present challenges at hand, companies are beginning to focus on the quality of society while taking care of their core businesses, an objective that transcends and includes the former quality orientations.This article first introduces the European Business Excellence Model (EFQM model), which have facilitated the transformation toward an integral management approach, including openings to corporate social responsibility (CSR). We will than elaborate on the cultural context of companies engaged in CSR and social responsible investing (SRI) activities. We will end this article with an overview of CSR activities, structured according the EFQM model.     

A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead

This study aims to trace the conceptual evolutionary path of theories on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to reflect on the implications of the development. The retrospection has revealed that the trend has been a progressive rationalization of the concept with a particular focus on tighter coupling with organizations’ financial goals. Rationalization involves two broad shifts in the conceptualization of CSR. First, in terms of the level of analysis, researchers have moved from the discussion of the macro‐social effects of CSR to organizational‐level analysis of CSR's effect on profit. Next, in terms of theoretical orientation, researchers have moved from explicitly normative and ethics‐oriented arguments to implicitly normative and performance‐oriented managerial studies. Based on the retrospection, the limitations of the current state of CSR research that places excessive emphasis on the business case for CSR are outlined, and it is suggested that future research needs to refocus on basic research in order to develop conceptual tools and theoretical mechanisms that explain changing organizational behavior from a broader societal perspective.     

Shareholders and managers: Who care more about corporate diversity and employee benefits?

We test two competing theories that explain a firm’s engagement in corporate diversity and employee benefits: socially responsible investment theory and management overinvestment theory. We find that publicly-traded companies with strong shareholder rights are more likely to promote women and/or minorities to the positions of CEO and board of directors in their organizations, conduct business with women- and/or minority-owned operations, and provide better family benefits to their employees than firms with strong management power. These findings indicate that the companies with strong shareholder rights engage more actively in internal aspects of CSR activities, which supports the socially responsible investment theory rather than the management overinvestment theory. Shareholders (i.e. institutional investors) tend to integrate their social goals (i.e. internal CSR issues) and financial goals into their investments. In response to these changes, managers should engage in the internal aspects of corporate social issues more aggressively as the agents of shareholders.     

Calling in a Debt: Government's Role in Creating the Capacity for Explicit Corporate Social Responsibility

Before the field of business and society can adequately analyze the relationship between governmental policies and corporate social responsibility (CSR), either as a reality or an ideal, it is first necessary to understand exactly how governments nurtured the development of the autonomous corporation. The roles assigned to government by the economics and management literatures—regulator, standard setter, protector, and adjudicator—ignore the crucial part played by state violence and government expenditures in the rise and sustained success of the corporate economy. An examination of the history of the American case, crucial for the development of the modern corporation as well as the “explicit” form of CSR that eventually followed it, highlights these roles: the willingness of the state to intervene with force in labor conflicts bolstered the managerial autonomy that defined the large corporation, and the way government expenditures promoted innovation and firm success. Acknowledging how corporations depended on government assistance in their development is a necessary step for both assessing the responsibilities owed stakeholders and for advancing the theoretical development of the field.     

Enhancing corporate social responsibility: Contract design under information asymmetry

We consider a two-stage supply chain in which a contract manufacturer (CM) sells products through a brand name retailer. The contract manufacturer can invest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities to improve customer perception about the firm and increase demand, while the retailer can influence the demand by exerting marketing efforts. We design optimal contracts for such a supply chain, which faces information asymmetry. The wholesale price contract was developed as the base model to derive insight into the value of information sharing. We examine the impact of CSR cost on CSR commitment and profits. We find that CM׳s CSR cost impacts the CM׳s and the retailer׳s profits differently. Under certain conditions, the CM׳s profit will increase with cost, while that of the retailer is uncertain. We also propose two-part tariff contracts for both the symmetric and asymmetric cases with the aim of maximizing the retailer׳s profit and improving CM׳s commitment to CSR. Finally, numerical experiments are conducted to illustrate and validate the proposed models and provide managerial insights.     

A Real Options Reasoning Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Integrating Real Option Sensemaking and CSR Orientation

In this article we explore the conceptual relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) orientation and real option reasoning. We argue that the firm's attitude, communication, and behavior toward CSR will act as significant determinants to the firm's sensemaking approach to real options; that is, if and how it (the firm) acknowledges, receives, and manages strategic real options. Integrating the previous work of Basu and Palazzo with Barnett, we propose a new model that extends the influence of CSR orientation/character to general strategic decision making while simultaneously developing the attention‐based view to real options.     

Corporate social responsibility,board of directors,and firm performance: an analysis of their relationships

This paper aims to contribute to the empirical evidence relating corporate social responsibility (CSR), board composition, and firm performance. Using a sample of Spanish listed firms included in the IBEX 35 over the period 2005–2010 the results show that the percentage of independent directors affect firm CSR activities, and that this effect is moderated by the resources available to the firm (measured by return on assets). Also, the CSR has a mediating role on the relation between the independence of the board of directors and firm value. These results hold for other board characteristics (board size and women as directors).     

Corporate social responsibility: a strategic and profitable response to entry?

This paper investigates whether an incumbent has an incentive to introduce corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities only as a response to entry by a competitor, i.e., the incumbent would eschew CSR if left uncontested. We assume that the entrant cannot provide CSR at least at the outset for two reasons: (1) it would not be credible due to its lack of recognition and (2) due to high fixed cost to pay e.g., for licensing. More precisely, this paper shows that monopolistic firms can have indeed the incentive to introduce CSR activities only as a response to entry. Therefore, increased competition can turn a firm “green”, providing a “win–win” for business as well as for the environment.     

The Mirror Effect: Corporate Social Responsibility,Corporate Social Irresponsibility and Firm Performance in Coordinated Market Economies and Liberal Market Economies

We investigate the classic management debate of agency versus institutional pressures through the application of the varieties of capitalism literature. In particular, we examine corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR) and their relationships with firm performance in two types of capitalist systems: coordinated market economies (CMEs) and liberal market economies (LMEs). We note that while the CSR literature has tended to develop a balanced view on the influence of agency and institutional pressures, the CSiR literature has tended to emphasize the influence of agency. The latter appears to be a result of the fundamental attribution bias, where irresponsible corporate behaviours are attributed to individual managers or organizations, rather than the institutional environment. Our results, which include five years of data across 16 countries, show significantly greater CSR and significantly lower CSiR in CMEs compared with LMEs. Further, we find a positive relationship between CSR and firm performance in CMEs but not LMEs, and a negative relationship between CSiR and firm performance in LMEs but not CMEs. Overall, our results demonstrate the influence of the institutional environment, suggesting that corporate behaviours mirror the external environment.