Social Responsibility Journal

Strategic CSR: an integrative model for analysis

Antnio Marques-Mendes Maria Joo Santos
Article information:
To cite this document:
Antnio Marques-Mendes Maria Joo Santos , (2016),"Strategic CSR: an integrative model for analysis", Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 363 - 381
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2015-0055
Downloaded on: 29 November 2016, At: 13:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 72 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 596 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

(2016),"Customer perception of CSR initiatives: its antecedents and consequences", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12
Iss 2 pp. 263-279 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2015-0056
(2014),"CSR in Developing Countries through an Institutional Lens", Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility,
Governance and Sustainability, Vol. 8 pp. 21-44 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2043-905920140000008005

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:158521 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Strategic CSR: an integrative model
for analysis
Antnio Marques-Mendes and Maria Joo Santos
Antnio Marques-Mendes
is Senior Lecturer at
University of the Arts
London, London, UK.
Maria Joo Santos is
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)
Professor at Department
of Social Sciences,
School of Economics and
Management, University
of Lisbon, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Received 21 April 2015
Revised 4 November 2015
Accepted 5 November 2015
DOI 10.1108/SRJ-04-2015-0055
Abstract
Purpose Based on an extensive review of the literature, the purpose of this paper is to propose an
analytical model that enables the study of the corporate social responsibility (CSR)s strategic
orientation of companies through the analysis of: the different types of CSR integration into company
strategies; the different levels of CSR strategic maturity; and the path necessary to be followed for a
company to achieve its full development and correspondingly forecasting which initiatives hold the
greatest contribution toward this end.
Design/methodology/approach This paper sets out a conceptual framework, which was drafted
building on an extensive critical review of the literature seeking to incorporate the diverse contributions
made by the existing CSR models and classifications.
Findings The analytical framework here proposed enables a wide reaching approach to analyzing
strategic CSR, their underlying motivations and its core factors. It also extends to considering the
different phases of maturity enabling the evaluation of the distinctive levels of CSR integration into the
company strategy and the stage at which the company currently stands at on its determined path.
Practical implications From a practical perspective, the suggested framework enables practitioners
to access a practical tool that specifically measures their companies CSR maturity and strategic profile
and which may serve as well as a means of diagnosis, improvement or of adaptation.
Originality/value This model of analysis generates the identification of the factors explaining the
different levels of CSR integration into the company strategy and evaluating the level of maturity
prevailing.
Keywords CSR, Business-CSR integration, CSR maturity, CSR strategy
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) research has represented one of the key strands of
research into organizational management in recent decades (Gond and Matten, 2007;
Walsh et al., 2003). This has brought about a change in the paradigm of study for the
relationship between the economy, society and the natural environment. The growing
pressure from stakeholders for companies to take into consideration the full extent of their
impacts has led to a shift in management paradigms reflected in the greater integration of
both market and non-market logics (Baron, 2001). The long-term success of companies,
and their capacity to generate value, is now perceived as influenced by the capacity they
display for acting responsibly, respecting all stakeholders and the natural environment
(Pedrini and Ferri, 2011; Parmar et al., 2010; Philips et al., 2003; Maak and Pless, 2006;
Wood and Logsdon, 2002; Hambrick and Chen, 2008). The core rationale to CSR is no
longer questioned, with the debates instead focusing on the characteristics of the
best-integrated CSR models (advancing different forms of value) capable to meet the
plurality of existing demands (Orlizsky et al., 2011; Kurucz et al., 2008; Maon et al., 2010).
While CSR tends to assume an increasingly strategic integration, there have only been a
few studies analyzing just why organizations report different levels of CSR. Thus, there is a
VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016, pp. 363-381, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 363
 need to deepen knowledge on the drivers and rationale of CSR behavior, on which factors
condition the level of firm CSR integration and the alignment between business strategy
and its CSR counterpart.
Strategic CSR contemplates the existence of convergence between the social,
environmental and economic benefits produced by a firm and attained through social and
environmental investments in the key factors of success within the respective competitive
context, thereby fostering a competitive advantage: a set of activities that are
simultaneously good for the company and for the society, thus improving companys
performance and creating social value (Carroll, 2001; Marsden et al., 2001; Porter and
Kramer, 2006).
Husted and Allen (2001, p. 3) suggest that CSR strategies are plans, investments and
actions put into practice by a company within the scope of attaining sustained competitive
advantages and, simultaneously, better social and economic performances. We here
consider social value as that which is added by a company and not to the exclusive benefit
of its shareholders, boosting the companys level of competitiveness while simultaneously
building up the economic and social conditions of the communities in which they operate
(Porter and Kramer, 2006). This idea of social value distances itself from the strictly
economic perception of value as a mere immediate or future financial gain for
shareholders.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

The objectives of this article are to devise a typology of CSR strategies able to:
distinguish between companies by identifying different CSR integration strategies used
by them according to the factors that are more crucial to their strategic approach to
CSR;
assess the level of CSR maturity of a company according to the degree of depth with
which CSR is integrated in the business operations; and
identify the state of development in each company en route to fully integrating
CSR-related concerns into the company strategy.
The final aim of this conceptual article (Callahan, 2010; Van Maanen et al., 2007) is to
propose a matrix able to gauge the level of a companys CSR integration. To achieve this
goal, we have followed a two-step process. First, we present a taxonomy of CSR models,
which was drafted building on a critical review of the literature seeking to incorporate the
contributions made by existing CSR models and classifications. Its outcome is a structured
classification (a meta-model) of three model types:

1. ideological models (those deriving from the analysis of the set of values, ideological
profiles and cultural traits underlying corporate decision-making which have a
determinant role in the relationship between companies and societies);
2. procedural models (resulting from studying the types of processes, structures and
practices actually implemented by companies, either in terms of the responses to
external stakeholders pressures, the structure of the management practices in place or
the exercise of corporate citizenship); and
3. consequentialist models (those focused upon the identification of the types of benefits
and impacts of actions taken by organizations, aimed at creating or appropriating
socially added value).
Second, this meta-model feed into the formulation of an analytical framework enabling the
study of strategic CSR by dividing integration strategies into three categories, namely,
those driven by: ideological forces; procedural forces; and produced impacts.
Despite the relevance of the theme, there are however few theoretical approaches to this
domain and with empirical studies on the issue of CSR strategic maturity still rarer in
number. This article makes an innovative contribution to the study and implementation of

PAGE 364 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

 CSR within organizational contexts. Its theoretical value results from proposing an
integrated analytical conceptual framework, which allows for future empirical research in
the field of strategic CSR. Moreover, it allows the categorization of different types of
strategic CSR integration, the underlying motivations and its core factors (more focused on
values, processes or impacts), as well as a classification of maturity levels in CSR showing
how deeply CSR is integrated into the business strategy and, finally, enables the
identification of the progress each company may have done on its way to the full integration
of CSR into their operations, thereby rendering possible the forecasting of which CSR
measures attain the greatest potential.
From a practical perspective, it enables practitioners to access a practical tool that
specifically measures their companies CSR maturity and strategic profile. Its deployment
may serve as a means of diagnosis, improvement or of adaptation within the framework of
leveraging CSR as a fundamental strategic strength. This may also assist them in
understanding and forecasting just which CSR initiatives and measures hold the greatest
viability and probability of achieving the results desired while simultaneously generating
competitive advantages for companies and social value for the society.
The article structure is as follows: first, we explore and analyze the different categorizations
proposed by the literature; second, we put forward an alternative model of analyzing CSR
organizational integration, which incorporates a broad range of variables.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

2. A meta-model of analysis of companies corporate social responsibility

strategic integration classifications
There are divergences in terms of the core guidelines underpinning the various existing
classifications. The analytical dimension chosen by the original authors is dictated by their
approach to the CSR concept and their recognition of the different forces at play in CSRs
business integration. CSR is conceived differently and its integration in a company is
understood and labeled accordingly, depending on the recognition of the importance of
some CSRs strategic integration driving forces over the others.
Aiming at clarifying this dimension of the literature, we summarize the conceptual
approaches according to the main vector of analysis applied by the original authors. As we
shall see, our conclusion is that CSR integration is either driven by values, procedures or
expected impacts. Underlying our segmentation is the question How is CSR integrated in
business activities?.
Our meta-model of analysis groups the different approaches into three categories
according to the dominant analytical dimension applied in the model: ideological;
procedural; and consequentialist.
Any classification is the result of a systematic grouping of instances into categories
according to similarities found in structure, nature or origin. They must be internally
consistent (commonality) and externally exclusive (diversity). The criterion we used was the
prevalent CSRs strategic integration driving force taken into account by the original
authors (Table I). We critically analyzed, confronted and compared available
categorizations-classifications and then isolated the dominant driving force used and
valued by each author. While highlighting a predominant driving force for CSRs integration,
some objective indicators are used and valued, revealing the authors understanding of
corporatesociety relations, their conception of CSR and their theoretical affiliation (Garriga
and Mel, 2004; Secchi, 2007). We subsequently clustered similar approaches according
to the leading driving force and associated core idea, resulting in the three-categories
meta-model as shown below.
In the first category, CSR is conceptualized as a values-based reality and is integrated in
business activities through the activation of values, culture and ideology. In procedural
models, CSR is considered as an instrumental reality leveraged on specific processes and
activities, which will drive its integration. Finally, in consequentialist models, CSR is seen

VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 365

 Table I A meta-model of analysis of companies CSR integration classifications and theoretical approaches
Models Approach Key authors Core idea

Ideological Focused on values and Reidenbach and Robin (1991), Analysis of the relationship between
ideology Sridhar and Camburn (1993), companies and societies based
Frederick (1986, 1994), upon the prevailing values. CSR is
Logsdon and Yuthas (1997), mostly integrated by triggering,
Van Marrewijk (2003, 2004), maintaining and sharing a set of
Wheeler et al. (2003), Jones core dominant values
et al. (2007), Spitzeck (2009),
Maon et al. (2010)
Procedural Focused on specific processes Carroll (1979), Clarkson (1991, Companies integrate CSR through
and responses given by the 1995), Burke and Logsdon practice and the implementation of
management (1996), Hillman and Keim specific tools. Analysis of the CSR
(2001), Munilla and Miles policies, structures, processes and
(2005), RARE (2005), Hahn actions, firms implement
and Scheermesser (2005),
Mirvis and Googins (2006,
2010), Zadek (2004, 2005),
Halme (2007), Avastone
Consulting (2007), Bondy
(2008), MIT Sloan Management
Review and The Boston
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

Consulting Group (2009, 2011)

Consequentialist Focused on benefits and Porter` and Kramer (2006, CSR integrated into business
consequences of the actions 2011), Husted and Allen (2007, strategy and operations chiefly
2011), Jones (2008), Quazi and through results. Firms strategic
OBrien (2000) character is identified by
discriminating between companies
according to the type of impacts,
benefits and value created
Source: Authors own

through the lenses of its results, to be obtained in corporate and social lives, and
companies are thought to make decisions bearing in mind the kind of effects to be
obtained.
The meta-model of analysis enables to see the CSR strategic integration profile a company
might have according to the preferred modes of intervention in terms of CSR and the
favored integration strategic driver.

2.1 Ideological models

CSRs integration into business activities is considered as a values-driven process, where
values, culture and ideology are the driving forces. In these classifications, segmentation
derives from portraying the set of values and cultural traits existing in the company and
determining their relationship with the politicalsocial context. These models recognize the
existence of specific values and cultures in organizations that condition their CSRs
integration: either more focused on the organization or on developing the group or
community surrounding the respective organization. In the construction of the proposed
classifications, organizational values take on a fundamental role alongside the set of
consciously acknowledged core beliefs that shape and guide organizational goals,
expectations and actions. The ethical and cultural approaches to the CSR concept are here
incorporated.
Spitzeck (2009) refers to an evolutionary process of moral learning ranging from a
pre-conventional state through to a post-conventional state (in which the organization
decides according to universally accepted moral rules). Van Marrewijk (2003, 2004) and
Van Marrewijk et al. (2004) recognize that organizations have a natural tendency to evolve,
founded by the principles of self-determination and competition. Correspondingly, they

PAGE 366 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

 consider four types of CSR of an incremental character and aligned with stages of
development structured toward organizational excellence. Frederick (1986, 1994)
suggested that the evolution of CSR went through a four-stage developmental process
running from CSR1 to CSR4, where the author identifies responsibility, responsiveness,
rectitude and religion as consciousness, as the different steps in CSRs evolution, being the
last a stage where the corporation is no longer at the center of attention; a transcendental
move of the firm or a sort of Copernican revolution in the relationship between business and
society. The author approaches CSR from a normatively tinged perspective and sees the
relationship between the society and business as being continuously pervaded by values
and morality. Maon et al. (2010), in turn, put forward an integrated model based on
organizational culture defending the existence of different phases and steps to achieving
the full strategic development of CSR in companies. The authors take into account the core
values along with certain operational characteristics while rejecting other potential
variables such as the issues involved in the creation of social value, the impacts of CSR
practices or the economically conditioning factors and the markets in which the company
participates. Wheeler et al. (2003) approach is based on corporate stakeholder theory and
suggest that the creation of value is the main driving force at work in market economies
even when conceived differently by different actors. In accordance with the culture of the
dominant stakeholders, we may therefore characterize companies and relate their culture
to their organizational attitudes toward stakeholders and, thus, to the creation of value.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

Building on this thinking, Jones et al. (2007) proposed as well five categories of stakeholder
cultures in companies, deriving from their ethical assumptions that range from
self-concern, to concern about others.

2.2 Procedural models

These models result from studying the types of processes and structures actually
implemented by companies, either in terms of the responses produced to external
stakeholders pressures (Galuppo et al., 2004), the structure of the management practices
in place or the exercise of corporate citizenship. These categories are based on the
evidences of responses to the society that organizations undertake. CSR is seen as an
instrumental process, and the spotlight falls on the structure implemented for concrete
actions and the social performance that organizations effectively have. This perspective
aggregates three major groups. First, those analyses focused on CSR practices in terms of
the relationships and the pressures produced by external stakeholders. Then, those
analyzing the levels of maturity in terms of the CSR management practices adopted. Finally,
those research findings on the procedural exercise of corporate citizenship.
The most prominent proposal in the first group came from Carroll (1979). Carroll applied the
concept of social responsiveness to describe a model of organizational social
performance ranging on continuum from no response (do nothing) to a proactive
response (do much). Clarkson (1991, 1995) operationalizes Carrolls (1979) categories
and proposes the RDAP (Reaction, Defense, Accommodation, Proaction) scale focused
on the analysis of the type of stakeholders relationship the company maintains with. Burke
and Logsdon (1996) also deepen this concept of responsiveness and identify five
dimensions to determine the different levels of strategic integration (centrality, specificity,
proactivity, voluntarism and visibility).
A second group of classifications emphasizes the different CSR formulation processes. The
RARE (2005) project identifies two different forms of processes:

1. CSR in a strict sense, that assumes the incorporation of socially responsible behaviors
into companies operations, processes and decision-making (built in, strategic CSR).
2. CSR in a more latent sense, spanning that social involvement that reaches beyond the
immediate business activities (bolt-on, non-strategic CSR).

VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 367

 In this same line, Bondy (2008, p. 75) refers to integrated and non-integrated (coupled/
decoupled) strategic responses by companies to CSR concerns.
To the traditional bipolarization of CSR practices, observance versus strategic, Munilla and
Miles (2005) add a third category that takes into account the internalization of CSR due to
the stakeholders influence and companies obligations toward them.
Hahn and Scheermesser (2005); Avastone Consulting (2007); MIT Sloan Management
Review and The Boston Consulting Group (2009, 2011) attribute central importance to the
profile of practices and to the extent of the CSR incorporated into management
(Valmohammadi, 2014). Accordingly, companies may then be segmented into different
clusters (Ting et al., 2010).
Finally, in this category should be highlighted the approaches focused upon the
development of corporate citizenship. Mirvis and Googins (2006) propose the corporate
citizenship model of phased development considering an evolutionary process in the
companies path toward full citizenship. Zadek (2004, 2005) also proposed an evolutionary
dynamic process of citizenship development that, at its fullest extent, turns companies into
good citizens.

2.3 Consequentialist models

These models focus upon the identification of the types of impacts taken by organizations
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

aimed at creating or appropriating socially added value from CSR. The expected
consequences are the driving forces, and not so much attention is given to other factors.
Porter and Kramer (2006) distinguish between responsive and strategic CSR and Husted
and Allen (2007, 2011) proposal is in this sense similar. The latter analyze companies
based on the concept of value creation and discriminate between those that are altruistic,
co-opted egoists and strategic. Jones (2008) similarly bases his approach on types of
impact (positive and negative) existing to the company and to the society. Jones (2008)
takes into account the cross-referencing of the impact on the company and the
repercussions for the society and discriminates between pathologies, public goods, social
irresponsibility and the enlightened self-interest. Finally, Quazi and OBrien (2000)
propose a bi-dimensional model: the scope of responsibility and perceptions of the
consequences of companies social actions, resulting in four types of CSR: modern,
socioeconomic, philanthropic and classical.

3. A conceptual framework for strategic corporate social responsibility analysis

So far, we have proposed a meta-model of analysis highlighting different approaches taken
by numerous authors that suggest the existence of three different CSR integration grand
strategies companies use in incorporating CSR into business activities. Taking this into
consideration and the objective indicators implied in our review, we now turn our attention
to the second step of our research. The outcome of it is an integrative structure enabling a
broader and systematic analysis of strategic CSR, which adds analytical instruments to the
already existing range. We propose a conceptual framework (Table II) that enables
the analysis of strategic CSR integration and maturity. On the vertical axis, it displays three
dimensions and corresponding attributes (driving forces of the integration efforts): the
moral value and ideological positioning; the processes deployed in CSR management and
the resulting impacts. In turn, the horizontal axis considers the level of CSR integration in
the company strategy, allowing the evaluation of the phase and stage of maturity, which the
company has reached in its way to the full integration of CSR. Our classification process
aims at achieving a dual result:

1. to identify the company type in accordance with the various different analytical criteria
(and the grand strategy used); and
2. to identify the phase of development each company has attained.

PAGE 368 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

 Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

Table II CSR phases of development and company CSR strategic integration;

Maturity stages
strategic CSR
integration Negation Observance Efficiency Strategic innovation Strategic integration Transformational

Dimensions and attributes of CSR integration

Ideological: focused on values and ideologies
Culture and values Profit. Opposition Duty, obedience, Productivity efficiency Innovation, honesty, Integration, partnership, Alliance, integrity, communion.
to the CSR discipline. Marginal CSR or CSR within equality. CSR is openness, trust. CSR is core to business.
concept Employment, profits operational aspects to the managing Sustainability and 3BL are Companys is changing the game.
and taxes represent business stakeholder essential business concepts Thrives for social progress, and
the companys CSR expectations and looks for sectorial and industrial
CSR is a source of awareness raising
innovation
CSR motivations Forced and null Forced investment Stimulated egoistic Stimulated egoistic Self-motivated altruistic Self-motivated altruistic social
perceived impact in order to observe lowering of risks and lowering of risks in leveraging of opportunities. mobilization to attain social
rules and norms in getting a LTO order to establish a CSR as a piece of change and create markets
place business case and companys value proposal
gain competitive
advantage
Position regarding Use, sporadic, Unilateral Interaction Reciprocal influence Partnership, constructive, Alliance, collaboration,
stakeholders merely legitimacy co-development
contractual
CSR leadership Absent Rhetoric Support Disseminator Promoter Visionary

Procedural: focused on practices and processes

Strategic alignment Non-existent Low Low High High Non-differentiation
CSR formalization and Null Funds and Sporadic, limited with Multifunctional plans Advanced level of Full institutionalization
instruments structures limited to fragmented initiatives of action with formalization with the stable
those required dynamic and varying, and sufficient allocation of
non-constant resources
structures

VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

Consequentialist: focused on consequences, benefits and impacts
Sustainable Value 0
Added
Carbon footprint 0% 100%
efficiency
Organisational Justice 100% 0%

Source: Authors own

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL

PAGE 369
 In this perspective, we distance ourselves from the study by Maon et al. (2010), who refer
to some opposition between linear-evolutionary models (presented according to phases of
development) and the discrete model type (companies typologies designed to
individualize the pattern of business involvement with CSR). The framework we set out
below complies with both objectives.

3.1 The conceptual framework

3.1.1 The horizontal axis. The framework (Table II) considers in this axis a continuum
ranging from the non-existence of any alignment or integration of the company business
strategic and CSR practices (negation) through to a complete identification between the
two (transformation). In this last stage, CSR becomes the very organizational raison dtre
ensuring progress to the social good while simultaneously bringing about value to the
business. More than milestones, we should see each stage as a stepstone in a continuous
ongoing process. The borders between stages are represented purposely in the matrix by
dot lines, as the practice has proven that company CSR often, due to several factors (e.g.
legislation or institutional pressures), may burn stages (Dunphy et al., 2003) or register
setbacks, seemingly unexplainable.
This axis contains six different CSR profiles corresponding to different stages in the
development of company-based CSR. To its construction, we carried out a review of
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

more than 30-stage models available in the literature. Subsequently, we sought to organize
these various approaches in accordance with the main stages or steps put forward by the
authors. A preliminary conclusion we reached, as mentioned before, was that authors
classify CSR maturity according to two different conceptual macro-structures:
linear-evolutionary models and discrete models. We furthermore found that irrespective of
the macro-structure applied to categorize CSR maturity development, the various models
coincide on the idea that under certain circumstances CSR is susceptible to strategic
integration. The comparison between the various existing models in the literature (taking
into consideration their structural characteristics) led us to conclude for the existence of
certain identifiable patterns among them. We then scrutinized the result of such
comparison through the lenses of our previously defined meta-model of analysis
of companies CSR integration strategies and its three-dimensional architecture to generate
clearly autonomous and distinguishable categories. The result of such process is an
integrative continuum presented as a six-stage (archetypical) classification of CSR maturity
development.
The negation stage reflects a closed mindset and an opposition to the concept of CSR, to
which no value is recognized. There is no organizational interest in contextual issues, and
the relationships with stakeholders are sporadic and utilitarian. Senior management does
not show any interest in CSR, as business philosophy is led by profit. Investments in CSR
are marginal and driven by external pressures or due to legally stipulated obligations as
such investments are considered to be useless. CSR is not considered strategic being
thought as not bringing any competitive advantage or nurturing any meaningful business or
social value. Therefore, there are no CSR structures and policies in place.
Companies in the observance stage believe they fulfill their responsibilities toward societies
by simply performing their normal activities (employment, taxation, profits). Firms reveal a
defensive perspective toward the surrounding environment privileging a unilateral
relationship with stakeholders. CSR-related investments come about for forced external
reasons and to protect fundamental company functions. CSR maybe adopted by the
company leadership as a rhetorical mechanism. When existing, the value created by CSR
is above all to the company and with such practices only taking place in the company to
observe rules, norms and patterns of conduct enacted in the community and that imply
some strictly necessary investment in tools and their formal implementation. There is a low
alignment between CSR and the company strategy.

PAGE 370 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

 In the efficiency stage, CSR gets designed on a case-by-case basis and sustained by
sporadically implemented instruments seeking above all to promote the company. The
company reacts to issues proving determinant in its surrounding environment,
accommodating to them through interactive processes involving stakeholders. CSR is
externally motivated, aiming at reducing risks and attempting to boost organizational
efficiency. The value created falls usually to the company. There is a weak belief in the
impact on the society caused by the investments made and leaders only reluctantly
support such initiatives and do not facilitate the integration of CSR.
In the strategic innovation stage, CSR is perceived as a source of innovation due to the
reciprocal influence existing between stakeholders and the company. These relationships
permeated by honesty and equality, result in an increased degree of proximity with positive
consequences over the advancement of organizational activities. The leadership takes up
a key role in promoting CSR out of the belief that the investment carried out is a source of
value creation both economic-financial and social, representing a competitive advantage
with positive impacts to the organization. CSR is implemented in multifunctional action
plans based on dynamic structures even though remaining inconstant over time. There is
a concern about providing a public account of the activities undertaken that generates the
progressive integration of the company strategy and the respective social responsibility
strategy.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

In the strategic integration stage, CSR is seen from an advanced perspective,

incorporating the idea of business sustainability and the triple bottom line. Stakeholders
are deemed partners in developing the business. A CSR culture based on openness and
trust values inspires companies proactivity in the society. While seeking to take advantage
of the opportunities, the motivation for doing so stems from the company itself, which
reveals an altruistic character influenced by the active promotion of the attitudes and
behaviors identified as desirable by the leadership. This involvement results in ensuring a
formal structure to CSR within the organization with the stable and continuous allocation
resources reflecting in the constancy of the policies and instruments implemented.
Ongoing processes are in place to audit, measure and certify the company in terms of its
CSR strategy. CSR represents a core factor in the company value proposal. There is a
positive impact on the society generated by the company out of its belief in the creation of
socially added value by the business.
The highest level of a companys incorporation of CSR concerns is observed in the
transformational stage. CSR is core to companies business and because of that they
attempt to change the rules of the game through its influence on awareness at the social
level. Their vision of social development enacts internal transformations. Companies take a
leading role on issues arising out of its context. Corporate and CSR strategies are fully
aligned, and the leadership commonly takes on a visionary approach. There is a spirit of
openness prevailing at the company revealing a relationship with stakeholders focused
upon cooperation and alliances. CSR is altruistic and self-motivated out of a social vocation
in the belief that social change can be brought while simultaneously leveraging markets.
There is co-creation of value with stakeholders achieved through long-lasting relationships.
There is institutionalization of structures, instruments and policies, which are subject to full
public scrutiny.
3.1.2 The vertical axis. Recent surveys (MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston
Consulting Group, 2013; UN Global Compact Report, 2013) found that many companies
show a disconnection between thought and action regarding CSR. The vast majority of the
companies surveyed show good intentions, revealing in their mission statements a strong
commitment to CSR and displaying corporate values aligned with the concept in their
corporate credos. However, only a few are effectively designing policies, implementing
programs and measuring the outcomes of their efforts. The MIT-BCG report (MIT Sloan
Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group (2013, p. 3) suggests that we
should name these two types of companies the walkers and talkers, reflecting different

VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 371

 ways companies are approaching the challenges of CSR. Moreover, the literature in
sustainable supply chain management (Seuring and Mller, 2008) reports that the
integration of suppliers into social responsible product innovation development and
the progress of sustainable supply chain management are strongly dependent on the
demands made by stakeholders and international institutions (e.g. fair trade, labor rights
and safety regulations). Participants in multinational supply chains innovate and adopt
changes with relevant social and environmental implications without sometimes addressing
any formal CSR policy and programs or acknowledging the primacy of CSR-related values
in their business operations. (Lee and Kim, 2011; Liu et al., 2012).
The findings of these surveys strengthen the idea that the determinant factor of CSR
integration and a firms CSR maturity varies according to the particular moment in time, the
situation and the context a company faces. In our perspective, a strategic CSR stage of
development implies coherence between values professed, strategy making, its execution
and measurement. Besides external alignment (between the company and its external
environment taking into consideration social and environmental issues in the strategic
management of the firm), strategic CSR involves internal alignment between conception
and execution, or more precisely, it requires a consequent practice of transposing content
into process. However, there is always a predominant dimension a company favors in terms
of CSR integration even if others are present.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

In the horizontal, we have explored precisely the level of integration between business
activities and CSR. On this axis, we take our previous research conclusions into
consideration and propose three distinct dimensions to describe the strategic CSR maturity
profile a company has and to analyze CSR activation in a company:

1. an ideological, related with values and ideologies;

2. a procedural, concerned with the management processes put into practice; and
3. a consequentialist, related to the impacts generated.
In accordance with these dimensions, we may devise various types of CSR integration
strategies.
Considering these dimensions, a total of nine different attributes were identified as
explained below. Based on the different positioning of the companies in accordance with
these dimensions, we may isolate various types of CSR integration strategies (vertical axis)
and a continuum of six CSR development phases featuring different degrees of strategic
maturity (horizontal axis) that companies may display.
The ideological dimension is focused on the identification of the set of values and cultural
factors that underlie the attitudes and decisions that the companies assume in terms of the
society and explaining their positioning in terms of CSR. This dimension contains three
variables: culture and values; CSR motivations; and position toward stakeholders.
The first one reflects dominant organizational values, their relationship with CSR and how
they influence practical organizational decision-making and behavior. This criterion reflects
the existing disposition within an organizations culture toward CSR-related matters.
Organizations may display different sets of values and different cultures that shall be more
proximate or distant to what is the fundamental conception of CSR, the entitys
responsibilities toward the society and its openness in terms of its surroundings.
The second variable the CSR-related motivations (investment rationale and strategic
intent) discriminates between what is influenced (whether forced or stimulated) for
external reasons from those that are not. A company may invest in CSR based on different
types of incentives, which may be internal or external, voluntary or forced. This variable
seeks to clarify just, which mechanisms trigger CSRs investment and what their
characteristics are (strategic intention behind the design and implementation of CSR
initiatives). Investment may result from specific institutional intentions or legal and imposed

PAGE 372 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

 requirements, or on the other hand, this may exclusively stem from altruistic factors of social
and environmental concern and correspondingly self-motivated. Additionally, this involves
grasping which benefits companies have in advancing with their initiatives. The investment
rationale serves to identify its respective profile. This may originate simply from the
limitation of business risks through complying with the social rules and legal framework in
effect, guaranteeing company legitimacy to operate, deepening competitive advantage,
transforming CSR into a proposal for generating value and even to the extent of these
pre-empted benefits including social change and/or the creation of markets. The prevailing
understanding on CSR in an organization is here encapsulated.
The last variable in this dimension refers to the attention paid to expectations and the
relationship with stakeholders. The way in which a company interrelates with its
stakeholders and the recognition of their importance to managing the business derives to
a large extent from the way they are conceptualized in conjunction with the design of their
role and contribution to business performance. They may be perceived as distant third
parties (with the relationship unilaterally managed by the company and undertaken
sporadically in accordance with that contractually necessary to organizational objectives),
or alternatively, the firm may recognize they are essential to organizational development
and worth maintaining through networks and alliances able to bring about the
co-development of the company and the stakeholders themselves.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

The procedural dimension focuses on the strategy and processes put into practice within
the scope of CSR management. The impact of CSR also strongly depends on the position
it occupies within strategic and operational management processes. We consider three
variables in here: CSR leadership; CSR strategic alignment; and the instruments and the
level of processes formalization.
The first variable questions precisely the position of organizations top managers toward
CSR, which may adopt different styles. What kind of involvement senior managers do have
in the companys CSR dynamics? Company leadership proves one of the factors
repeatedly identified as essential to adopting a CSR-oriented management philosophy.
CSR performance is considered to be determined by the involvement, capacity for
mobilization, support, promotion and control displayed by the company leadership.
Furthermore, the leadership may be displaced, absent, distant or non-committed to the
concept and practice of CSR or, on the contrary, may be its driver and foreseeing future
developments. The leadership position taken on CSR greatly conditions the scope for its
success within the organization. This variable cannot be confounded with the underlying
values held by a company or embraced by leaders.
CSR strategic alignment means the existing level of interconnectedness between the CSR
strategy (CSRS) and the company strategy (CS). The existence of a CSRS that is adapted
to the CS represents an important factor to its consolidation and is an indicator of its
capacity to obtain results whether for the society or for the company. The idea of an
alignment between these different strategic levels reflects in the proximity and mutual
identification between the CSR targets and priorities attributed at the company level. The
greater the level of integration across these two strategic levels, the closer the strategic
clusters of these two levels prove proximate and consequently generating higher levels of
synergies. This variable strives to convey the differing degrees of alignment that may exist
between the different strategic levels.
The CSR formalization and instruments variable involves the analysis of structures and of
the ongoing CSR-related procedures within the company. The development of CSR
activities depends on how they are internally managed and integrated into business
practices. The allocation of human, financial and material resources to these activities
represents different levels of implementation. As such, the design of the instruments and
structures adopted enable the identification of various levels of formalization within a
company. Here, we account for the different levels of formalization existing in organizations

VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 373

 and ranging from the complete absence of formalization through to major investments and
process formalization (full institutionalization).
The consequentialist dimension is focused on the consequences, benefits and impacts.
The creation and appropriation of value is central to business activities; however, the
knowledge we have regarding business consequences on the society is still limited
(Waddock and Graves, 1997; Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Maas, 2009).
Evaluations of business impact on the society, from a CSR perspective, have to consider
both the financial and the social value created by a firm. Clark et al. (2004, p. 7) define
impact as the portion of the total outcome that happened as a result of the activity of an
organization, above and beyond what would have happened anyway. As Maas (2009,
p. 62) suggests, while listing available measurement methods, to assess social impact is a
very discussed task. However, the expectations on generated impacts from CSR activities
are one of the drivers for CSR integration into business operations. Identifying indicators is,
therefore, relevant to clarify this part of the framework. In our conceptualization, we
consider three variables: sustainable value added; carbon footprint efficiency; and
organizational justice.
Figge and Hahn (2004) introduced the sustainable value added concept. The logic
underlying it is to express the sustainable value created by a company. If the profitability
of a certain investment exceeds its opportunity costs, then a company sustainably adds
value. Sustainable value added is a method to measure the contribution of an economic
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

entity, toward the sustainability of a specific region. Sustainable value is added if resources
are used in a more efficient way than by a benchmark (defined by the analyst). This variable
aims at determining the value created by the use of resources by comparing the profitability
of alternative uses of these resources (opportunity costs).
The carbon footprint is a measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide and methane
emissions of a defined population, system or activity, considering all relevant sources,
sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of the population, system or
activity of interest (Wright et al., 2011, p. 63). A way of analyzing a firms environmental
impact is to calculate its carbon footprint and compare it with a relevant benchmark (the
national economy) controlling for the particularities of the specific industry.
Finally, Baldwin (2006, p. 3) says, the term organizational justice refers to the extent to
which employees perceive workplace procedures, interactions and outcomes to be fair in
nature. A way of assessing the impact of CSR strategies is evaluating their impacts in
terms of the organizational population. Some indicators are particularly keen in showing the
importance and relevance CSRs consequences have to organizational leadership and
how ornamental CSR integration is in a company. Inequality of payment for men and
women doing the same job or wage disparity are some of the consequences a wrongly
formulated CSR policy may have. They are violations of organizational justice, which may
suggest negative impacts in the society and may be signs of the irrelevance of CSR for a
company. How better a company performs and how socially relevant the consequences of
their CSR strategies are, the more significant impacts are for a company and the more
important they become in the entire corporates CSR edifice. It is our belief that
organizational justice depicts the adequate features to act as an explanative indicator of a
companys CSR integration.

4. Discussion and concluding remarks

CSR research is focused currently on examining and evaluating the strategic role played by
CSR, on its relevance in terms of value creation and how companies may engage in CSR.
The research done so far is fragmented, and there is a tendency to study only parts of
strategic CSR, not the whole process.
Based on a widespread review of the literature (Alcaniz et al., 2010), this article summarizes
the various models and classification processes existing for the analysis of strategic CSR

PAGE 374 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

 and provides a comprehensive framework for approaching it. The integrative analytical
framework enables the segmentation of companies according to their level of strategic
maturity and the characterization of the different types of CSRs strategic integration.
To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to model theoretically strategic CSR by proposing
an explanatory framework grounded on a simultaneous analysis of the managerial,
organizational, institutional, sociological and psychological contexts surrounding and
influencing CSR practices (Figure 1).
There is a multiplicity of factors intervening in each organizational situation, which will
determine the character that CSR will assume. The concurrence of factors will determine
the integration strategy a company will adopt. In this perspective, a companys CSR
strategic integration is situational, as it depends on the conditions it experiences. We do not
hold a normative view, as our objective is merely to characterize the CSR configuration held
by a company in a certain moment, recognizing that in certain circumstances that
configuration will be strategic. Not all companies integrate CSR strategically and even
when they do it, it may result from different integration strategies. Only in some
circumstances, it proves feasible to simultaneously create and appropriate social and
business value, striving for company success while engaging responsibly with the
surrounding society. Hence, this article strives to distinguish between just what these
conditions actually represent.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

As a first step, we set out the literature review on the diverse models for the categorization
of CSR strategic integration, which were organized in accordance with the main analytical
vector applied by the authors along with the key factors taken into consideration by them.
We then present a segmentation (a meta-model) individualizing three model types:
ideological; procedural; and consequentialist, which may be seen as a typology of three
different CSR integration grand strategies.
Second, hinged on these conceptual assumptions, we put forward an integrative
framework responding to both theoretical and practical needs in terms of the CSR field.

Figure 1 A comprehensive framework for approaching strategic corporate social

responsibility

Culture and
values

Ideological: values and

ideologies CSR Motivations
Negation

Position
regarding
Obedience stakeholders

CSR leadership

Efficiency Procedural: practices and

processes Strategic
alignment
CSR Maturity CSR integration

Strategic CSR
Innovation formalization

Strategic
Integration
Sustainability
Value added

Transformation Consequentialist:
consequences, benefits Carbon footprint
and impacts efficiency

Organizational
Justice

Source: Authors own

VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 375

 This framework enables the study of strategic CSR maturity based on three dimensions and
as the result of the application of one of three integration strategies:

1. the culture and values conditioning actions within the scope of strategic CSR;
2. the management processes implemented and their level of formal integration into the
respective business management context; and
3. the generated impacts of CSR targeted actions and the resulting creation of value.
One of the major contributions of this conceptual article is precisely the framework it puts
forward to characterize the levels of CSR maturity and to identify the driving forces of CSR
integration in a firm. It enables the analysis and assessment of the integration strategy
favored by a company, its strategic CSR profile and level of maturity ranked against a
comparison of its competitors. Additionally, it provides a systematization method to the
existing relationships between CSR maturity and CSR integration of a firm, therefore
providing an additional tool to empirical research in these subject areas. It considers the
different characteristic features of CSR aggregated into three dimensions, broken down
into nine items of analysis and spanning six different stages of CSR company development.
This clarification also brings together a previously considered disparity between
linear-evolutionary models and discrete models.
By transforming the framework into a specific practical instrument, it may serve as a tool for
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

diagnosis and adapting within the context of enhancing a companys ability to leverage
CSR as a fundamental strategic strength that works out as a competitive advantage while
creating social value. This may also facilitate forecasting just which CSR initiatives hold the
greatest viability and probability of contributing toward organizational development and
success. A company, which recognizes that according to the model, is presently in a
certain stage of development and preferring a specific dimension of CSR integration may
decide to adjust and trigger adaptive measures to move to a more adequate position.
Figure 2 exemplifies a case in which a company being in a certain situation (A) in the

Figure 2 Example of a firms adjustments and adaptations

PAGE 376 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

 framework may move horizontally, vertically or both (AB, AC, AD, AE, AF) to reach a
different position according to its overall goals, ambitions or practical possibilities. In the
example, the company is in an early stage of maturity and the privileged dimension to
advance CSR efforts is the ideological one. The company may decide to continue
privileging the ideological dimension (depending on circumstances) but to increase the
quality of the relationships with its stakeholders or change some aspects of its culture to
start creating a business case for CSR, so as to move in the maturity continuum.
Alternatively, the firm may start investing in the procedural dimension expanding the
coherence and robustness of the CSR integration in business activities. It may do so, for
instance, by adopting some reporting standards and putting in place some programs and
organizational arrangements. By using the framework, a company can improve its
decision-making processes regarding CSR according to its aims and aspirations, which
may be determined by economic or non-economic reasons. The framework is rich enough
to cover the spectrum of possibilities and combinations of variables characterizing the
firms reality and in return provides sufficient information to enlighten the adjustments and
adaptations needed.
From an analytical perspective, it is possible that an organization in a stage of development
may exhibit some qualities typical from other stages of development, for example, a
sub-standard formalization or above/below average sustainable value added. The borders
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

between stages, as we have suggested earlier, are represented by dotted lines to signify
the volatility of CSR development and maturity. Each stage in the framework is an
archetypical position, which is contingent on the internal alignment of the mentioned
variables. Being the development of CSR an ongoing process, it is conceivable then that
at certain maturity stage, an organization may present qualities typical from other stages of
development. This means the situation the organization is going through is characterized
dominantly by a certain arrangement of features specific from a specific stage, but some
aspects of the CSR conception and practice may nevertheless require further attention,
investment and alignment to get the most out of each full-fledged stage of development.
This article, therefore, presents several originalities to the field of CSR research and reveals
theoretical and practical utility. Theoretically, it provides a multidisciplinary, comprehensive
and integrative approach, capable of embracing research that was fragmented till now.
Practically, it delivers a model which can be applied by managers to:
identify a companys strategic CSR maturity;
compare a companys CSR profile with others;
identify drivers of a companys CSR integration; and
identify measures to improve strategic CSR maturity in the company.
Furthermore, this framework can be used in the operationalization of more holistic future
studies in this area. From this integrated perspective, future research could compare
different types of industries, regions, companies and initiatives and, therefore, understand
the range of individual, organizational, social, political, economic or institutional factors
which have an impact on CSR maturity and CSR development. It might be used to
understand complex multi-level determinant factors of CSR strategy and the mechanisms
and foundations of internal and external CSR alignment. This model could in the future be
used as well to research the factors driving different approaches to CSR strategy and which
combinations of factors return more successful levels of strategy formulation and
implementation.
By stating the features of a strategic state, our model provides a more firmly grounded
insight into the integration and alignment between the companys business strategy and its
CSR strategy, shedding some additional light on the characteristics of CSR
strategy-making and execution. The conceptual model proposed, thus, contains both

VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 377

 theoretical and practical value to the theory and practice of CSR and represents a
foundation for future empirical research and theoretical reflection.

References
Alcaiz, E.B., Herrera, A.A., Prez, R.C. and Alcami, J.J.R. (2010), Latest evolution of academic
research in corporate social responsibility: an empirical analysis, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 332-344.

Avastone Consulting (2007), Mindsets in Action: Leadership and the Corporate Sustainability
Challenge, Atlanta.

Baldwin, S. (2006), Organisational Justice, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton, available at:
www.employment-studies co uk (accessed 17 November 2014).

Baron, D.P. (2001), Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy, Journal
of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-45.

Bondy, K. (2008), Institutions and agency in CSR strategy: an empirical investigation of development
and implementation, Unpublished PhD thesis, available at http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/586/1/
Institutions_and_Agency_in_CSR_Strategy_-_Final_-_pdf (accessed 20 April 2013).

Burke, L. and J. Logsdon (1996), How corporate social responsibility pays off, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 495-502.

Callahan, J. (2010), Constructing a manuscript: distinguishing integrative literature reviews and

Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

conceptual and theory articles, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 300-304.

Carroll, A. (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.

Carroll, A. (2001), Models of management morality for the new millennium, Business Ethics Quarterly,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 365-371.

Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D. and Olsen, S. (2004), Double bottom line project report:
assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures, Methods Catalog, available at: www.shidler.
hawaii.edu/Portals/1/resources/DoubleBottomLine.pdf (accessed 17 November 2014).

Clarkson, M. (1991), Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: the
stakeholder management model, in Fredrick, W. (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and
Policy, JAI Press, Greenwich.

Clarkson, M. (1995), A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.

Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A. and Benn, S. (2003), Organisational Change for Corporate Sustainability,
Routledge, New York, NY.

Figge, F. and Hahn, T. (2004), Sustainable value added measuring corporate contributions to
sustainability beyond eco-efficiency, Ecological Economics, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 173-187.

Frederick, W. (1986), Toward CSR3: why ethical analysis is indispensable and unavoidable in
corporate affairs, CA Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 126-141.

Frederick, W. (1994), From CSR1 to CSR2: the maturing of business-and-society thought, Business
and Society, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 150-164.

Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., Giuseppe Scaratti, G. and Kaneklin, C. (2014), Building social sustainability:
multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 685-701.

Garriga, E. and Mel, D. (2004), Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 51-71.

Gond, J. and Matten, D. (2007), Rethinking the business-society interface: beyond the functionalist
trap, ICCSR Research Paper Series No. 47-2007, ISSN 1479-5124, International Centre for Corporate
Social Responsibility Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham University, Nottingham.

Hahn, T. and Scheermesser, M. (2005), Approaches to corporate sustainability among German

companies, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, available at: Wiley Inter
Science (accessed 17 November 2014).

PAGE 378 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

 Halme, M. (2007), Something good for everyone? Investigation of three corporate responsibility
approaches, Working Papers Series W-435, Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki, available at:
http://epub.lib.aalto.fi/pdf/wp/w435 pdf (accessed 17 November 2014).

Hambrick, D. and Chen, M. (2008), New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements:
the case of strategic management, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 32-54.

Hillman, A. and Keim, G. (2001), Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues:
whats the bottom line?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 125-139.

Husted, B. and Allen, D. (2001), Toward a model of corporate social strategy formulation, paper
presented at the Social Issues in Management Division, Academy of Management, Washington, DC.

Husted, B. and Allen, D. (2007), Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among
large firms: lessons from the Spanish experience, Long Range Planning, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 594-610.

Husted, B. and Allen, D. (2011), Corporate Social Strategy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
MA.

Jones, M. (2008), Disrobing the emperor: mainstream CSR research and corporate hegemony,
Working Paper, Ashridge Business School and Maastricht School of Management, Berkhamsted.

Jones, T., Felps, W. and Bigley, G. (2007), Ethical theory and stakeholder related decisions: the role
of stakeholder culture, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 137-155.

Kurucz, E., Colbert, B. and Wheeler, D. (2008), The business case for corporate social responsibility,
in Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lee, K.H. and Kim, J.W. (2011), Integrating suppliers into green product innovation development: an
empirical case study in the semiconductor industry, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20
No. 8, pp. 527-538.

Liu, X., Yang, J., Qu, S., Wang, L., Shishime, T. and Bao, C. (2012), Sustainable production: practices
and determinant factors of green supply chain management of Chinese companies, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Logsdon, J.M. and Yuthas, K. (1997), Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, and
organizational moral development, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 Nos 12/13, pp. 1213-1226.

Maak, T. and Pless, N. (2006), Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: a relational

perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 99-115.

Maas, K. (2009), Corporate social performance: from output measurement to impact measurement,
Unpublished doctoral thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, available at: www.erim.eur.nl
(accessed 17 November 2014).

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010), Oganizational stages and cultural phases: a critical
review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development, International Journal
of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-38.

Margolis, J. and Walsh, J. (2003), Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp. 268-305.

Marsden, T., Renting, H., Banks, J. and van der Ploeg, J. (2001), The road towards sustainable
agricultural and rural development: issues of theory, policy and research practice, Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 75-83.

Mirvis, P. and Googins, B. (2006), Stages of corporate citizenship, CA Management Review, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 103-126.

Mirvis, P. and Googins, B. (2010), Moving to Next Generation Corporate Citizenship, Centrum fr
Corporate Citizenship Deutschland, Deutschland, available at: www.cccdeutschland.org (accessed
17 November 2014).

MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group (2009), The business of
sustainability, findings and insights from the first annual business of sustainability survey and the
global thought leaders research project, MIT Sloan Management Review Special Report, available at:
www.ideiasustentavel.com.br/pdf/mitsloan_sr2009-dl.pdf (accessed 25 May 2013).

MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group (2011), Report on the 2010
sustainability and innovation global executive study and research project, available at: http://
pubservice.com/msstore/ProductDetails.aspx?CPC52380 (accessed on 24 May 2013).

VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 379

 MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group (2013), Sustainabilitys next
frontier, Report on the 2013 Sustainability and Innovation Global Executive Study and Research
Project, available at http://pubservice.com/msstore/ProductDetails.aspx?CPC52380 (accessed 24
May 2013).

Munilla, L. and Miles, M. (2005), The corporate social responsibility continuum as a component of
stakeholder theory, Business and Society Review, Vol. 110 No. 4, pp. 371-387.

Orlitzky, M., Shmidt, F. and Rynes, S. (2003), Corporate social and financial performance: a
meta-analysis, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 403-441.

Orlizsky, M., Siegel, D. and Waldman, D. (2011), Strategic corporate social responsibility and
environmental sustainability, Business & SocietyVol. 50 No. 1, pp. 6-27.

Parmar, B., Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Purnell, L. and Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder theory:
the state of the art, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 403-445.

Pedrini, M. and Ferri, L. (2011), Implementing corporate social responsibility: an exploratory study of
strategy integration and CSR officers duty, Economia Aziendale Online, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 175-187.

Philips, R., Freeman, E. and Wicks, A. (2003), What stakeholder theory is not, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 479-502.

Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2006), Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.

Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011), Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism and unleas a
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

wave of innovation and growth, Harvard Business Review, January-February, 2011.

Quazi, A. and OBrien, D. (2000), An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social
responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 33-51.

RARE (2005), Corporate social responsibility: integrating a business and societal governance
perspective, The RARE Projects Approach, available at: www.rare-eu.net (accessed 20 May 2013).

Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. (1991), A conceptual model of corporate moral development,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 273-284.

Secchi, D. (2007), Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 347-373.

Seuring, S. and Mler, M. (2008), From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
supply chain management, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1699-1710.

Spitzeck, H. (2009), The development of governance structures for corporate responsibility,

Corporate Governance, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 495-505.

Sridhar, B.S. and Camburn, A. (1993), Stages of moral development of corporations, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 727-739.

Ting, H.W., Ramasamy, B. and Ging, L.C. (2010), Management systems and the CSR engagement,
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 362-373.

UN Global Compact (2013), The Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2013, New York, NY.

Valmohammadi, C. (2014), Impact of corporate social responsibility practices on organizational

performance: an ISO 26000 perspective, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 455-479.

Van Maanen, J., Sorenson, J.B. and Mitchell, T.R. (2007), The interplay between theory and method,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1145-1155.

van Marewijk, M. (2003), Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between
agency and communication, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 Nos 2/3, pp. 95-105.

van Marrewijk, M. (2004), A value based approach to organization types: towards a coherent set of
stakeholder-oriented management tools, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 147-158.

van Marrewijk, M., Wuisman, I., de Cleyn, W., Timmers, J., Panapanaan, V. and Linnanen, L. (2004),
A phase-wise development approach to business excellence: towards an innovative,
stakeholder-oriented assessment tool for organizational excellence and CSR, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 83-98.

Waddock, S. and Graves, S. (1997), The corporate social performance: financial performance link,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 303-319.

PAGE 380 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016

 Walsh, J., Weber, K. and Margolis, J. (2003), Social issues and management: our lost cause found,
Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 859-881.

Wheeler, D., Colbert, B.A. and Freeman, R.E. (2003), Focusing on value: reconciling corporate social
responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1-28.

Wood, D. and Logsdon, J. (2002), Business citizenship: from domestic to global level of analysis,
Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 155-188.

Wright, L., Kemp, S. and Williams, I. (2011), Carbon footprinting: towards a universally accepted
definition, Carbon Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 61-72.

Zadek, S. (2004), Paths to corporate responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 12,
pp. 125-132.

Zadek, S. (2005), Aligning Corporate Responsibility to Strategies for Business and National
Competitiveness, Instituto Ethos, Santa Quiteria, available at: www1.ethos.org.br/EthosWeb/arquivo/
0-A-d6eReflexao14.pdf (accessed 18 May 2013).

Further reading
Herrera, A., Alcaiz, E. and Prez, R. (2011), Perspectivas tericas usadas para el estudio de la
responsabilidad social empresarial: una clasificacin con base en su racionalidade, Estudios
Gerenciales, Vol. 27 No. 118, pp. 115-137.
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)

Corresponding author
Maria Joo Santos can be contacted at: mjsantos@iseg.utl.pt

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

VOL. 12 NO. 2 2016 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 381

 This article has been cited by:

1. 2016. The factors that really drive CSR integration. Strategic Direction 32:10, 27-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Doncaster College At 13:01 29 November 2016 (PT)