Corporate Social Responsibility or Corporate Social Irresponsibility: where should be the focus?

  • Received September 10, 2017;
    Accepted October 5, 2017;
    Published December 25, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Sulphey M. M.
    ORCID Researcher ID
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(4-1).2017.13
  • Article Info
    Volume 15 2017, Issue #4, pp. 293-301
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    6 articles
  • 1787 Views
  • 441 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

With multiple scandals and a host of disingenuous actions creating ripples across the corporate world, it is high time that Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI) is accorded the due importance, at par with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), by academia and the industry. CSI refers to situations wherein firms fail to meet a “minimum behavioral standard with respect to the corporation’s relationship with its stakeholders”. There have been many instances wherein CSI and corporate wrongdoings have been covered up with CSR. Many scholars consider CSR and CSI as opposite forces that are interconnected and interdependent, and take turns in giving rise to each other. CSI, being an emergent and a topical subject area, is yet to develop in terms of theory, and is still evolving. The present work attempts to motivate further investigation in the emerging area by presenting theoretical views and available accumulated empirical works. The study has puts across a fair view of the topic. It is expected that the present work will stimulate scholars to take up further investigation in the emerging area.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Differing views about CSI
    • Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as Usual: The Acceptance and Perpetuation of Corruption in Organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 39-53.
    • Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016). An Extended Model of Moral Outrage at Corporate Social Irresponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 429-444.
    • Arpan, L. M. (2005). Integration of information about corporate social performance. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 83-98.
    • Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The Normalization of Corruption in Organizations. In R. M. Kramer and B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior, 25 (pp. 1-52). (Elsevier, Amsterdam).
    • Bansal., P., & Kandola, S. (2003). Corporate social irresponsibility: Why good people behave badly in organizations. Ivey Business Journal, (March/April), 1-5.
    • Baron, D. P., Harjoto, M. A., & Hoje, J. (2011). The economics and politics of corporate social performance. Business and Politics, 13(2), 1-46.
    • Baucus, M. S. (1994). Pressure, opportunity, and predisposition: A multivariate model of corporate illegality. Journal of Management, 20(4), 699-721.
    • Birch, D. (2008). Analysis of CSR: principles and concepts. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(1/2), 129-135.
    • Bishop, M., & Green, M. (2010). The road from ruin: How to revive capitalism and put America back on top. New York: Crown Business.
    • Bowd, R., Jones, B., & Tench, R. (2005). CSR and the Media, Summary Research Report, Leeds Metropolitan University and Connectpoint, Leeds.
    • Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967.
    • Carroll, A. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
    • Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, July-August.
    • Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125-169.
    • Corporate Watch. (2006). What is wrong with corporate social responsibility. (Corporate Watch CSR Report 2006).
    • Cronin, T., Reysen, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2012). Wal- Mart’s conscientious objectors: Perceived illegitimacy, moral anger, and retaliatory consumer behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 322-335.
    • Erickson, K. G., Crosnoe, R., & Dornbusch, S. M. (2000). A social process model of adolescent deviance: Combining social control and differential association perspectives. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(4), 395-425.
    • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425-445.
    • Grappi, S., Romani, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2013). The effects of company offshoring strategies on consumer responses. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(6), 683-704.
    • Greve, H., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 53-107.
    • Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2013). Discourses on corporate social irresponsibility in the financial sector. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1870-1880.
    • Jones, B., Bowd, R., & Tench, R. (2009). Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: competing realities. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(3), 300-310.
    • Jones, B. (2015). Corporate social irresponsibility: The role of government and ideology. In Reframing Corporate Social Responsibility: Lessons from the Global Financial Crisis. 10 Mar 2015, 57-75.
    • Kostova, T. (1997). Country institutional profile: Concept and measurement. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 180-189. Boston, MA.
    • Kotchen, M. J., & Moon, J. J. (2007). Corporate social responsibility for irresponsibility. U.C. Santa Barbara and NBER University of Pennsylvania.
    • Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300-326.
    • Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D., & Weinberger, D. (2000). The Cluetrain Manifesto: The end of business as usual. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
    • Lindenmeier, J., Schleer, C., & Pricl, D. (2012). Consumer outrage: Emotional reactions to unethical corporate behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1364-1373.
    • Lioui, A., & Sharma, Z. (2012). Environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance: disentangling direct and indirect effects. Ecological Economics, 78, 100-111.
    • Macalister, T. (2012). Pharma overtakes arms industry to top the league of misbehaviour. The Observer, 8 July.
    • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.
    • Mazzei, M. J., Gangloff, A. K., & Shook, C. L (2015). Examining multi-level effects on corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility. Management & Marketing, 10(3), 163-184.
    • Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. (2010). Why “good” firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 701-722.
    • Muller, A., & Kraussl, R. (2011). Doing good deeds in times of need: a strategic perspective on corporate disaster donations. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 911-929.
    • Murphy, P. E., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a special topic section. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1807-1813.
    • Nunn, A. (2015). The Structural Contradictions and Constraints on Corporate Social Responsibility: Challenges for Corporate Social Irresponsibility. In Corporate Social Irresponsibility: A Challenging Concept. Published online on 09 Mar 2015.
    • Oikonomou, I., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2012). The impact of corporate social performance on financial risk and utility: a longitudinal analysis. Financial Management, 41, 483-515.
    • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.
    • Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Leadership Centrality and Corporate Social Ir-Responsibility (CSIR): The Potential Ameliorating Effects of Self and Shared Leadership on CISR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 563-579.
    • Popa, M., & Salanță, I. (2014). Corporate social responsibility versus corporate social irresponsibility. Management & Marketing: Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 9(2), 137-146.
    • Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2013). My anger is your gain, my contempt your loss: Explaining consumer responses to corporate wrongdoing. Psychology & Marketing, 30(12), 1029-1042.
    • Roubini, N., & Mihm, S. (2010). Crisis economics: A crash course in the future of finance. London: Allen Lane.
    • Singer, M. S. (2000). Ethical and Fair Work Behaviour: A Normative-Empirical Dialogue Concerning Ethics and Justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 187-209.
    • Stokes, P. (2015). The Janus Dialectic of Corporate Social Irresponsibility and Corporate Social Responsibility – The Role of Micro-Moments. In Corporate Social Irresponsibility: A Challenging Concept. Published online 09 Mar 2015, 83-108.
    • Strike, V., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms, Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 850-862.
    • Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir) responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1338-1357.
    • Tench, R., Sun, W., & Jones, B. (2015). The Challenging Concept of Corporate Social Irresponsibility: An Introduction. In Corporate Social Irresponsibility: A Challenging Concept. Published online 09 Mar 2015, 3-20.
    • Tett, G. (2010). Fool’s gold: How unrestrained greed corrupted a dream, shattered global markets and unleashed a catastrophe. London: Abacus.
    • Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sense making and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 239-270.
    • Treanor, J. (2012). Barclays just the tip of the iceberg as banking braced for more scandals. The Observer, 8 July.
    • Trevino, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to Be Ethical: Debunking Five Business Ethics Myths. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 69-80.
    • Vogel, D. (1992). The globalization of business ethics: Why America remains distinctive. California Management Review, 35(1), 30-49.
    • Wagner, T., Bicen, P., & Hall, Z. R. (2008). The dark side of retailing: Towards a scale of corporate social irresponsibility. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 36(2), 124-142.
    • Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 227-242.
    • Walker, K., Zhang, Z., & Yu, B. (2016). The angel-halo effect: How increases in corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility relate to firm performance. European Business Review, 28(6), 709-722.
    • Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Agle, B. (2005). Somebody I look up to: Ethical role models in organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 34(4), 313-330.
    • Windsor, D. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility: A positive theory approach, Journal of Business Research, 66, 1937‐1944.
    • Zahra, S. A., Priem, R. L., & Rasheed, A. A. (2005). The antecedents and consequences of top management fraud. Journal of Management, 31(6), 803-828.
Related Articles

  • The relationship between corporate social responsibility and earnings management: accounting for endogeneity

    Hyunjung Choi , Byungchul ChoiORCID , Jungyoon ByunORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(4).2018.06
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 15, 2018         Issue #4         pp. 69-84 Views: 4589 Downloads: 537 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    This study examines the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and earnings management after controlling for endogeneity of CSR. Using a sample of non-financial firms listed on Korean Securities Market between 2002 and 2010, this study finds that ignoring endogeneity biases the estimated relation between CSR and earnings management. Specifically, the results show that the negative and significant relation between CSR commitment and discretionary accruals reported in the previous studies becomes insignificant. However, the negative and significant relation between CSR commitment and real activities manipulation remains significant even when the endogeneity of CSR commitment is taken into account. Therefore, this study provides evidence that proactive CSR engagement significantly affects firm’s practice of real activities manipulation, while it does not affect its practice of discretionary accruals. These results indicate that CSR commitment leads managers to be more responsible in management of operational activities than in accruals management.

  • Does board composition have an impact on CSR reporting?

    Patrick VelteORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(2).2017.02
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017         Issue #2         pp. 19-35 Views: 4456 Downloads: 1718 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting plays a key role in management control, particularly in light of the increased demand for non-financial reporting after the financial crisis of 2008–2009. This literature review evaluates 47 empirical studies that concentrate on the influence of several board composition variables on the quantity and quality of CSR reporting. The author briefly introduces the research framework that underpins current empirical studies in this field. This is followed by a discussion of the main variables of board composition: (1) committees (audit and CSR committees), (2) board independence, (3) board expertise, (4) CEO duality, (5) board diversity (gender and foreign diversity), (6) board activity, and (7) board size. The author, then, summarizes the key findings, discusses the limitations of the existing research and offers useful recommendations for researchers, firm practice and regulators.

  • From the corporate social responsibility reporting to the integrated reporting: the case of Sabaf S.p.a

    Renato Camodeca , Alex Almici doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(1-1).2017.01
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017         Issue #1 (cont.)         pp. 150-157 Views: 2530 Downloads: 1043 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    In December 2013, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) published the International Integrated Reporting Framework.
    The aim of the Framework is to provide the guiding principles and the content elements of an integrated report. The integrated report constitutes an evolutionary step in the corporate’s financial and non-financial communication, moving from the social responsibility reporting to the integrated reporting.
    This practice is at the beginning in Europe and especially in Italy, where only a few listed companies have decided to face the multitude of challenges the integrated report implies.
    Considering the relevance of such a new form of communication, the paper examines the main steps carried out by an Italian listed company moving towards the integrated report. The research has been conducted by adopting a qualitative case study approach, by focusing on Sabaf S.p.a, an Italian listed medium sized company belonging to the Star Segment. This company has been selected, because it was one of the first adopters of the integrated report among the Italian listed companies.
    The study is built on data gathered through sites visits, structured interviews and company materials.
    The paper examines Sabaf’s transition from the corporate social responsibility report to the integrated report, aiming at answering the following research question:
    Why has Sabaf moved to integrated reporting? Which are Sabaf’s main steps towars the integrated report? How is the Sabaf’s integrated reporting process going?
    The findings should be of interest to a number of parties including standard setters, firms, financial advisors, auditors and users of non-financial statements.

Download Preview
Close
Problems and Perspectives in Management
Problems and Perspectives in Management