Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Liberal Thought in Reasoning on CSR

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, I argue that conventional reasoning on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is based on the assumption of a liberal market economy in the context of a nation state. I build on the study of Scherer and Palazzo (Acad Manage Rev 32(4):1096–1120, 2007), developing a number of criteria to identify elements of liberal philosophy in the ongoing CSR debate. I discuss their occurrence in the CSR literature in detail and reflect on the implications, taking into account the emerging political reading of the firm. I conclude that the apolitical framework in the mainstream CSR literature has to be overcome since it does not reflect recent changes in the socio-economic conditions for economic actors in a globalizing world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CSP:

Corporate social performance

CSR:

Corporate social responsibility

MNC:

Multinational corporation

TNC:

Transnational corporation

References

  • Aaronson, S. A.: 2003. ‘Corporate Responsibility in the Global Village: The British Role Model and the American Laggard’. Business and Society Review, 108(3): 309–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AccountAbility. 2004. Strategic challenges for business in the use of corporate responsibility codes, standards, and frameworks. London: AccountAbility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, R. W., & Bauer, R. A. 1975. Corporate social responsiveness: The Modern Dilemma. Reston: Reston Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alakeson, V., T. Aldrich, J. Goodman, B. Jorgensen and P. Miller: 2003, ‘Social Responsibility in the Information Society: Digital Europe’, Project Funded by the European Community under the “Information Society Technology” Programme.

  • Alfonso F. B., Sharma P. (2005) ‘Is Responsibility on the Menu?’. Communication World, 22(3): 14-15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriof, J., & McIntosh, M. 2001. Introduction. In J. Andriof, & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship: 13-24. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli, C.: 2006. ‘Localized technological change and factor markets: constraints and inducements to innovationstar, open’. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 17(2): 224-247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D.: 1985. ‘An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability’. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 446-463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, E., Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Zaim, O.: 2005. ‘Accounting for externalities in the measurement of productivity growth: the Malmquist cost productivity measure’. Structural Change & Economic Dynamics, 16(3): 374-394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P.: 2005. ‘Evolving Sustainably: A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Sustainable Development’. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 197-218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Clelland, I.: 2004. ‘Talking Trash: Legitimacy, Impression Management, and Unsystematic Risk in the Context of the Natural Environment’. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1): 93-103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J.: 1991. ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C. A., S. Ghoshal and J. Birkinshaw: 2003, Transnational Management: Text, Cases and Readings in Cross-Border Management (ISE Editions ed.) (McGraw-Hill, Boston).

  • Barton, S. L., Hill, N. C., & Sundaram, S.: 1989. ‘An Empirical Test of Stakeholder Theory Predictions of Capital Structure’. Financial Management, 18(1): 36-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K., & Palazzo, G.: 2008. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking’. Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 122-136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baucus, M. S., & Baucus, D. A.: 1997. ‘Paying the piper: An empirical examination of longer-term financial consequences of illegal corporate behavior’. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 129-151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C.: 2003. ‘The Theory of Reflexive Modernization: Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme’. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(2): 1-33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekefi, T., B. Jenkins and B. Kytle: 2006, Social Risk as Strategic Risk, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Working Paper No. 30 (John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA).

  • Bendell, J.: 2004, ‘Barricades and Boardrooms: A Contemporary History of the Corporate Accountability Movement’, in Technology, Business and Society Programme, Paper Number 13 (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva)

  • Bendell, J.: 2005. ‘In whose name? The accountability of corporate social responsibility’. Development in Practice, 15(3/4): 362-374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Minette, D. H.: 2004. ‘Social Alliances: Company/Nonprofit Collaboration’. California Management Review, 47(1): 58-90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 1967. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhagwati, J. 2004. In Defense of Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S.: 2004. ‘Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives’. California Management Review, 47(1): 9-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J. R.: 1996. ‘Business Ethics and the Theory of the Firm’. American Business Law Journal, 34: 217-238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brummer, J. J. 1991. Corporate Responsibility and Legitimacy: An Interdisciplinary Analysis. New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M.: 1975. ‘A Contractarian Perspective for Applying Economic Theory’. American Economic Review Proceedings, 65(2): 225-230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M.: 1988, ‘Contractarian Political Economy and Constitutional Interpretation’, The American Economic Review 78(2), 135–139.

  • Calton, J. M., & Payne, S. L.: 2003. ‘Coping With Paradox: Multistakeholder Learning Dialogue as a Pluralist Sensemaking Process for Addressing Messy Problems’. Business & Society, 42(1): 7-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy, M., Castells, M., & Benner, C.: 1997. ‘Labour Markets and Employment Practices in the Age of Flexibility: A Case Study of Silicon Valley’. International Labour Review, 136(1): 27-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1979. ‘A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance’. Academy of Management Review, 4(4): 497-505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. 1989. Business &Society. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1991. ‘The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders’. Business Horizons, 34(4): 39-48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1998. ‘The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship’. Business and Society Review, 100(1): 1-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1999. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct’. Business and Society Review, 38(3): 268-295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 2004. ‘Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge’. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2): 114-120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. N. 1962. Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J., & Murphy, R.: 2004. ‘The Social Irresponsibility of Corporate Tax Avoidance: Taking CSR to the bottom line’. Development, 47(3): 37-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, A. 2006. Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. E.: 2000. ‘Differences Between Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility’. Public Relations Review, 26(3): 363-380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. E.: 1995. ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92-117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H.: 1937. ‘The Nature of the Firm’. Economica, 4(16): 386-405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collett, B.: 2007. ‘Whose Job is It Anyway?’, Human Resources Feb, 38–39.

  • Coppock, R., & Dierkes, M.: 1973. ‘Corporate Responsibility Does Not Depend on Public Pressure’. Business and Society Review/Innovation, 6: 82-89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C.: 1987. ‘Corporate Stakeholders and Corporate Finance’. Financial Management, 16(1): 5-14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative. 2004. Leadership, Accountability and Partnership: Critical Trends and Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cragg, W.: 2002. ‘Business Ethics and Stakeholder Theory’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 113-142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D.: 2005. ‘Corporate Citizenship: Missing the Point or Missing the Boat? A Reply to van Oosterhout’. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 681-684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J.: 2004. ‘Stakeholders as Citizens? Rethinking Rights, Participation, and Democracy’. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2): 107-122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, A. C.: 2001. ‘Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization: a crisis of legitimacy’. Review of International Studies, 27(2): 133-150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R.: 2002. ‘Institutional Theory and Institutional Change: Introduction to the Special Research Forum’. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 45-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L. and A. Y. Lewin: 1993. ‘Where are the Theories for the “New” Organizational Forms? An Editorial Essay’, Organization Science 4(4), i–vi.

  • Davis, K.: 1973. ‘The Case for and against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities’. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2): 312-322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentchev, N.: 2004. ‘Corporate Social Performance as a Business Strategy’. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4): 397-412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W.: 1983. ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dombrowski P., Mansbach R (1999) ‘From sovereign states to sovereign markets?’. International Politics 36:1-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E.: 1995. ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. 1962. Concept of the Corporation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P.: 1984. ‘The New Meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility’. California Management Review, 26(2): 53-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M.: 1989. ‘Agency theory: an assessment and review’. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K. M., Martin J. A. (2000) ‘Dynamic capabilities: What are they?’. Strategic Management Journal 21(10-11): 1105-1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J.: 1998, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of Sustainability (New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC)

  • European Commission. 2001. Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility: Green Paper. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C.: 1983. ‘Agency Problems and Residual Claims’. Journal of Law & Economics, 26(2): 327-350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmanfarmaian, R. 2004. Anglo-American Exclusionary Democratic Discourse and the Revolution in Iran: Prefiguring The War on Terror. Cambridge: Centre of International Studies, Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrum, C. J.: 1997, ‘Three Pillars of Corporate Citizenship: Ethics, Social Benefit, Profitability’, in N. M. Tichy, A. R. McGill and L. S. Clair (eds.), Corporate Global Citizenship: Doing Business in the Public Eye (The New Lexington Press, San Francisco), pp. 27–42.

  • Fombrun, C. J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M.: 1990. ‘What’s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy’. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 233-258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, W. C.: 1998. ‘Moving to CSR4: What to pack for the trip’. Business and Society, 37(1): 40-59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1994. ‘The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 409-421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. 1995. Stakeholder Thinking: The State of the Art. In J. Nasi (Ed.), Understanding Stakeholder Thinking: 35-46. Helsinki: LSR-Julkaisut Oy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M.: 1990. ‘Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation’. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4): 337-259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Time Magazine September 13, 32–33, 122, 124, 126.

  • Fung, A.: 2003. ‘Associations and Democracy: Between Theories, Hopes, and Realities’. Annual Review of Sociology, 29: 515–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furrer, O., C. P. Egri, D. A. Ralston, W. Danis, E. Reynaud, I. Naoumova, M. Molteni, A. Starkus, F. L. Darder, M. Dabic and A. Perrinjaquet: 2007, ‘Attitudes Toward Corporate Responsibilities in Western Europe and in Central and Eastern Europe’, Working Paper, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D.: 2004. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory’. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51-71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S.: 1987. ‘Global Strategy: An Organizing Framework’. Strategic Management Journal, 8(5): 425-440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, R.: 1996. ‘Economic Evolution of National Systems’. International Studies Quarterly, 40(3): 411-431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golob, U., & Bartlett, J. L.: 2007. ‘Communicating about corporate social responsibility: A comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia’. Public Relations Review, 33(1): 1-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., Palazzo, G., & Basu, K.: 2009. ‘Reconsidering Instrumental Corporate Social Responsibility through the Mafia Metaphor’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1): 57-85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonin, M.: 2008, ‘The Social Disembedding of Business Theory and Practice: A (Neo-)Institutional Analysis of the Homo Economicus and Corporate Social Respon- sibility, and the Inherent Responsibility of Business Scholars’, Unpublished Dissertation, University of Lausanne, Lausanne.

  • Goodpaster, K. E.: 1991. ‘Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1): 55-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J. N.: 2002. ‘What Enron Means for the Management and Control of the Modern Business Corporation: Some Initial Reflections’. The University of Chicago Law Review, 69(3): 1233-1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grolin, J.: 1998. ‘Corporate legitimacy in risk society: the case of Brent Spar’. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(4): 213-222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als > Ideologie < . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1984, Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. T. McCarthy (Beacon Press, Boston, MA).

  • Habermas, J.: 1996, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. W. Rehg (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

  • Habermas, J.: 1998, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, trans. C. Cronin and P. De Greiff (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

  • Habermas, J.: 2001. The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, trans. M. Pensky (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

  • Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H.: 1996. ‘Managing and Partnering with External Stakeholders’. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2): 46-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L.: 1995. ‘A natural-resource-based view of the firm’. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 986-1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, D. 2001. Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility. Wellington: New Zealand Business Roundtable.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W.: 2002. ‘The Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement’. California Management Review, 44(2): 110-125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higham, P. A., & Vokey, J. R.: 2000. ‘The controlled application of a strategy can still produce automatic effects: Reply to Redington (2000)’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(4): 476-480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M.: 1992. ‘Stakeholder Agency Theory’. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2): 131-154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D.: 2001. ‘Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line’. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2): 125-140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, E. C.: 1936. ‘The Ecological Aspect of Institutions’. American Sociological Review, 1(2): 180-189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huppes, G. and M. Ishikawa: 2005, ‘Why Eco-efficiency?’, Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(4), 2–5. doi:10.1162/108819805775248052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izushi, H., & Aoyama, Y.: 2006. ‘Industry evolution and cross-sectoral skill transfers: a comparative analysis of the video game industry in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom’. Environment & Planning A, 38(10): 1843-1861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, S., Sen, D., Khan, M., & Bala, S.: 2007. ‘An analytical study on social responsibility performance evaluation as an accounting measure of management efficiency’. AI & Society, 21(3): 251-266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, P. 1996. Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C.: 2002. ‘Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 235-256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., & Meckling, W.: 1976. ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Capital Structure’. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4): 305-360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M.: 1980. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility revisited, redefined’. California Management Review, 22(2): 59-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M.: 1995. ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics’. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404-437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C.: 1999. ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory’. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 206-221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julius, D.: 1997. ‘Globalization and Stakeholder Conflicts: A Corporate Perspective’. International Affairs, 73(3): 453-468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaikati, A. M., & Kaikati, J. G.: 2004. ‘Stealth Marketing: How to reach Consumers Surreptitiously’. California Management Review, 46(4): 6-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keim, G. D.: 1978. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: An Assessment of the Enlightened Self-Interest Model’. Academy of Management Review, 3(1): 32-39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Key, S.: 1999. ‘Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder “theory”‘. Management Decision, 37(4): 317-328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. D., & McLaughlin, C. P.: 1996. ‘The Impact of Environmental Management on Firm Performance’. Management Science, 42(8): 1199-1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. 1999. No logo. New York: Picador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knights, D.: 1992. ‘Changing Spaces: The Disruptive Impact of a New Epistemological Location for the Study of Management’. Academy of Management Review, 17(3): 514-536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. J. 1997. The architecture of globalization: state sovereignty in a networked global economy. In J. H. Dunning (Ed.), Governments, Globalization, and International Business: 146-171. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U.: 1992. ‘Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology’. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kytle, B. and J. G. Ruggie: 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility as Risk Management: A Model for Multinationals, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 10 (John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA).

  • Landreth, H., & Colander, D. C. 2002. History of Economic Thought. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litz, R. A.: 1996. ‘A Resourced-Based-View of the Socially Responsible Firm: Stakeholder Interdependence, Ethical Awareness, and Issue Responsiveness as Strategic Assets’. Journal of Business Ethics, 15: 1355-1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louppe, A.: 2006. ‘Contribution du Marketing au Développement Durable’. Revue Francaise du Marketing, 208: 7-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løwendahl, B., & Revang, ø.: 1998. ‘Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial society’. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8): 755-773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunde, L., Taylor, M., & Huser, A. 2003. Commerce or Crime? Regulating Economies of Conflict: Private Sector Activity in Armed Conflict. Oslo: Fafo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, I.: 1985, ‘The Limits of Business Self-Regulation’, California Management Review 27(3), 132.

  • Maragia, B.: 2002. ‘Almost there: Another way of conceptualizing and explaining NGOs’ quest for legitimacy in global politics’. Non-State Actors and International Law, 2: 301–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G.: 1962. ‘The business firm as a political coalition’. Journal of Politics, 24(4): 662-678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marens, R., & Wicks, A. C.: 1999. ‘Getting Real: Stakeholder Theory, Managerial Practice, and the General Irrelevance of Fiduciary Duties Owed to Shareholders’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2): 273-293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P.: 2003. ‘Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 268-305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A.: 2005. ‘Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization’. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 166-179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W.: 2003. ‘Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship’. Journal of Business Ethics, 45: 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, C.: 1995. ‘The Political Theory of Organizations and Business Ethics’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24(4): 292-313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meznar, M. B., Nigh, D., & Kwok, C. C. Y.: 1994. ‘Effect of announcements of withdrawal from South Africa on stockholder wealth’. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6): 1633-1648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J.: 1997. ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts’. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853-886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D. M.: 1997. ‘Ecoefficiency in consumer products’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 355(1728): 1405-1414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J., A. Crane and D. Matten: 2003, ‘Can Corporations be Citizens? Corporate Citizenship as a Metaphor for Business Participation in Society. In: D. Matten (ed.), ICCSR Research Paper Series (2nd Edition). Nottingham: International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Schultz, M.: 2006. ‘Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies’. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4): 323-338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss Kanter, R., & Brinkerhoff, D.: 1981. ‘Organizational Performance: Recent Developments in Measurement’. Annual Review of Sociology, 7: 321-349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, K. B., & Montanari, J. R.: 1986. ‘Strategic Management of the Socially Responsible Firm: Integrating Management and Marketing Theory’. Academy of Management Review, 11(4): 815-828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, D. N.: 2002. ‘Global Society in Transition’. International Politics, 39: 353-359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Y.-K.: 1972. ‘Value Judgments and Economists’ Role in Policy Recommendation’. The Economic Journal, 82(327): 1014-1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2005. A Draft OECD Risk Management Tool for Investors in Weak Governance Zones. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  • Ogden, S., & Watson, R.: 1999. ‘Corporate Performance and Stakeholder Management: Balancing Shareholder and Customer Interests in the U.K. Privatized Water Industry’. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 526-538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M.: 2000, Corporate Social Performance: Developing Effective Strategies, Research Brief (Centre for Corporate Change, Australian Graduate School of Management, The University of New South Wales, Sydney).

  • Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A.: 2002. ‘The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 215-233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, B.: 2002. ‘U.S.-American and German business ethics: An intercultural comparison’. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(3): 195-216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G.: 2006. ‘Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework’. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1): 71-88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, C. 1998. Sustainable Peace: The Role of the UN and Regional Organizations in Preventing Conflict. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, E. R.: 2005. ‘Guiding the Invisible Hand’. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 20: 77-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, E. R. and M. J. Andersen: 2006, ‘Safeguarding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Global Supply Chains: How Codes of Conduct are Managed in Buyer-Supplier Relationships’, Journal of Public Affairs 6(3/4), 228–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrick, J., & Quinn, J.: 2001. ‘The Challenge of Leadership Accountability for Integrity Capacity as a Strategic Asset’. Journal of Business Ethics, 34: 331-343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciotto, S.: 2006, Regulatory Networks and Global Governance, Paper Presented at the W. G. HART LEGAL WORKSHOP 2006: The Retreat of the State: Challenges to Law and Lawyers, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.

  • Porter, M. E.: 1987. ‘From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy’. Harvard Business Review, 65(3): 43-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. and M. Kramer: 2002, ‘The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review, 5–16.

  • Powell, T. C.: 2002. ‘The philosophy of strategy’. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9): 873-880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M.: 2007. ‘Corporate governance, reputation, and environmental risk’. Environment & Planning C: Government & Policy, 25(1): 90-97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. and S. L. Hart: 1999, Strategies for the Bottom of the Pyramid: Creating Sustainable Development. DRAFT for the World Resource Institute Summit 2001. Retrieved from http://pdf.wri.org/2001summit_hartarticle.pdf.

  • Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. 1975. Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E.: 1981. ‘Principle of Public Policy’. California Management Review, 23(3): 56-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, D. P., & Jones, T. M.: 1995. ‘An Agent Morality View of Business Policy’. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 22-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitz, H. J.: 1979. ‘The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective’. Academy of Management Review, 4(2): 309-310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard, O. C.: 2000. ‘Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: a resource-based view’. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 164-177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T.: 2004. ‘Global Governance and Communicative Action’, Government and Opposition 39, 288–313.

  • Roberts, J. 2004. The Modern Firm: Organizational Design for Performance and Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, B. S., & Chaset, A. J.: 1995. ‘Preventive medicine for corporate crime’. Business & Society Review 94, 34, ISSN: 00453609.

  • Rondinelli, D. A.: 2002. ‘Transnational Corporations: International Citizens or New Sovereigns’. Business & Society Review 107(4): 391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J.: 1997. ‘Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences’. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 887-910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, P. H.: 1973. ‘The expansion of firms’. Journal of Political Economy, 81: 936-949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J.: 2007, Business and Human Rights: Mapping International Standards of Responsibility and Accountability For Corporate Acts, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council”: United Nations.

  • Schäfer, H., Hauser-Ditz, A., & Preller, E. C. 2004. Transparenzstudie zur Beschreibung ausgewählter international verbreiteter Rating-Systeme zur Erfassung von Corporate Social Responsibility. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2008, The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World – A Call for a Paradigm Shift in CSR. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Paper submitted to the 2008 Annual Meeting in Anaheim, California.

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G.: 2007. ‘Towards A Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility - Business And Society Seen From A Habermasian Perspective’. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1096-1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D.: 2006. ‘Global Rules and Private Actors: Toward a New Role of the Transnational Corporation in Global Governance’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4): 505-532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz-Bruns, R.: 2001. ‘The Postnational Constellation: Democratic Governance in the Era of Globalization’. Constellations, 8(4): 554-568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B.: 2003. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach’. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4): 505-530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. 1995. Institutions and Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C.: 2002. ‘Private Regulation of the Public Sector: A Neglected Facet of Contemporary Governance’. Journal of Law & Society, 29(1): 56-76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P.: 1979. ‘A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns’. Academy of Management Review, 4(1): 63-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. C.: 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?’, California Management Review 45(4), 52–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spar, D. L., & La Mure, L. T.: 2003. ‘The Power of Activism: Assessing the Impact of NGOs on Global Business’. California Management Review, 45(3): 78-101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M.: 1996. ‘Knowledge and the Firm: Overview’. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 5-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, E.: 2001. ‘International Integration and Democracy: No Love at First Sight’. The American Journal of International Law, 95(3): 489-534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E. 2002. Globalization and its discontents. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M.: 1995. ‘Managing Legitimacy and Institutional Approaches’. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C.: 2004. ‘The Corporate Objective Revisited’. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 15(3): 350-363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. L.: 1995. ‘Addressing A Theoretical Problem by Reorienting the Corporate Social Performance Model’. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 43-64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A.: 1997. ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. 2008. Just good business: A special report on corporate responsibility. London: The Economist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, K.: 1999. ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’. Annual Review of Political Science,, 2: 369-404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. 2006. World Investment Report: FDI from Developing and Transition Economies: Implications for Development. New York and Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Useem, M.: 1990. ‘Business Restructuring, Management Control, and Corporate Organization’. Theory and Society, 19(6): 681-707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiele, T. v. d., Kok, P., McKenna, R., & Brown, A.: 2001. ‘A Corporate Social Responsibility Audit within a Quality Management Framework’. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(4): 285-297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oosterhout, J.: 2005. ‘Corporate Citizenship: An Idea Whose Time Has Not Yet Come’. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 677-681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, P., & Menon, A.: 1988. ‘Cause-related Marketing: A Co-alignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy’. Journal of Marketing, 52: 58-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vining, A. R., Shapiro, D. M., & Borges, B.: 2005. ‘Building the firm’s political (lobbying) strategy’. Journal of Public Affairs, 5: 150-175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Davis, D. L.: 1990. ‘The relationship between ethics and job satisfaction: An empirical investigation’. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(6): 489-494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vives, A.: 2004. ‘The Role of Multilateral Development Institutions in Fostering Corporate Social Responsibility’. Development, 47(3): 45-52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waage, S. A.: 2007. ‘Re-considering product design: a practical “road-map” for integration of sustainability issues’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(7): 638-649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S.: 2004. ‘Parallel Universes: Companies, Academics, and the Progress of Corporate Citizenship’. Business and Society Review, 109(1): 5-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D.: 2003. ‘Social Issues and Management: Our Lost Case Found’. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6): 859-881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L.: 1985. ‘The evolution of the corporate social performance model’. Academy of Management Review, 10: 758-769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD. 2002. The Business Case for Sustainable Development: Making a difference toward the Johannesburg Summit 2002 and beyond. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L.: 1999. ‘Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors’. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1): 41-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E.: 1991. ‘The Nontraditional Quality of Organizational Learning’. Organization Science, 2(1): 116-124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welcomer, S. A., Gioia, D. A., & Kilduff, M.: 2000. ‘Resisting the discourse of modernity: Rationality versus emotion in hazardous waste siting’. Human Relations, 53(9): 1175-1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B.: 1984. ‘A resource-based view of the firm’. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J.: 1991a. ‘Corporate social performance revisited’. Academy of Management Journal, 16(4): 691-718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J.: 1991b. ‘Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate Social Performance’. Journal of Management, 17(2): 383-406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R.: 1991. ‘Political Leadership and Regime Formation: On the Development of Institutions in International Society’. International Organization, 45(3): 281-308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M.: 2004. ‘Responsibility and global labor justice’. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4): 365-388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M.: 2005, Responsibility and Global Justice: A Social Connection Model. Conference on Global Justice, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, October 21–23, 2004.

  • Zadek, S.: 2004. ‘The path to corporate responsibility’. Harvard Business Review, 82(12): 125-132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander, U., & Kogut, B.: 1995. ‘Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test’. Organization Science, 6(1): 76-92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenisek, T. J.: 1979. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Conceptualization Based on Organizational Literature’. Academy of Management Review, 4(3): 359-368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerk, J. A. 2006. Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility: Limitations and Opportunities in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G.: 1987. ‘Institutional theories of organizations’. Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 443-464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zürn, M.: 2000. ‘Democratic Governance Beyond the Nation-State: The EU and Other International Institutions’. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2): 183–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centrum Católica, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

    Ulf Henning Richter

Authors
  1. Ulf Henning Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulf Henning Richter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Richter, U.H. Liberal Thought in Reasoning on CSR. J Bus Ethics 97, 625–649 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0529-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0529-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation