accounting theory revision

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199710%2922%3A4%3C853%3ATATOSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html

http://www.jstor.org/journals/aom.html

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199710%2922%3A4%3C853%3ATATOSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28197910%294%3A4%3C497%3AATCMOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28198909%2934%3A3%3C411%3ADDITEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199501%2920%3A1%3C92%3AASFFAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0143-2095%28198803%2F04%299%3A2%3C123%3ACESECA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28197306%2916%3A2%3C312%3ATCFAAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28198304%2948%3A2%3C147%3ATICRII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199501%2920%3A1%3C65%3ATSTOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28198511%2991%3A3%3C481%3AEAASST%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198207%297%3A3%3C488%3AICWSLI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198404%299%3A2%3C193%3AUETOAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0143-2095%28198803%2F04%299%3A2%3C159%3ATCAOSC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199104%2916%3A2%3C366%3AEDMBII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199504%2920%3A2%3C404%3AISTASO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28197709%2983%3A2%3C340%3AIOFSAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197412%2919%3A4%3C453%3ATBAUOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199507%2920%3A3%3C571%3AMLSAIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199110%2916%3A4%3C691%3ACSPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Corporations, Civil Society, and

Stakeholders: An Organizational

Conceptualization Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

ABSTRACT. This article presents a descriptive con-

ceptual framework comprising four different company

configurations with respect to orientations toward cor-

porate social responsibility (CSR). The four types are

Skeptical, Pragmatic, Engaged, and Idealistic. The frame-

work is grounded in instrumental and normative stake-

holder theory, and a company’s configuration is based on

its instrumental and/or normative stance toward stake-

holders. Its configuration indicates what position a com-

pany adopts in relation to CSR. This article argues that

there is no one formula to fit all companies, descriptively

or prescriptively, but the potential variety in approaches

to CSR is not infinite, as it can be distilled logically into a

few fundamental approaches, embodied in the four

organizational configurations presented in the conceptual

framework. Each configuration constitutes a middle-

range theory of interlocking characteristics in terms of

CSR, and so each type of company will assume respon-

sibilities to civil society in ways consistent with its con-

figurational characteristics. The framework incorporates

previous empirical findings and theoretical explanations.

It is intuitively clear and reasonable to managers, and thus,

has practical value in organizational management.

KEY WORDS: stakeholders, corporate social responsi-

bility, organizational configurations

Introduction

Business is increasingly expected to fulfill a role

beyond that of private economic entities that pro-

duce and distribute goods and services, as corporate

social responsibility (CSR) and stakeholders capture

attention (Margolis and Walsh, 2003). Indeed, there

are growing beliefs that not only are companies duty

bound to improve civil society, but also are

particularly well-suited to do so (Cumming et al.,

2005; Wilkes, 2005). Large transnational companies

(TNCs), especially those from developed countries,

can have a significant impact on the socioeconomic

well-being of those countries where they have a

presence (Hsieh, 2004; O’Higgins, 2003). However,

the CSR that is increasingly proposed raises a

number of questions. First, what defines CSR? The

range of definitions encompasses factors such as

company values, motives, behavioral features, and

firm and social outcomes (Crilly et al., 2008). Then,

how does CSR relate to the company’s core business

definition? Should companies go beyond their eco-

nomic tasks? How far and under what circumstances

should they do so? What capabilities do companies

need to enact their chosen social ends? What is the

place of stakeholder voice in deciding on forms of

social involvement? Is there a ‘business case’ for

CSR, and should that matter?

Most studies in the literature take a prescriptive

approach to CSR, on a ‘the-more-the-better’ basis.

This article takes a different approach, to show that

there is no one formula or definitive prescription or

description to delineate CSR. Instead, the article

presents an explanatory organizational framework,

grounded in stakeholder theory (Donaldson and

Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1994; Phillips, 2003),

which categorizes firms into four types with respect

to their orientation to stakeholders. The types are:

Skeptical, Pragmatic, Engaged, and Idealistic. The

typology is based on a configurational approach.

This means that each configuration is conceived as

an interlocking pattern of elements of organizational

values and behavior dispositions. The notion of

configuration offers a robust synthesis of attributes

and circumstances that lie at the heart of theory

Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 94:157–176 � Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0254-2

building (Christensen and Sundahl, 2001). The

simultaneous treatment of so many variables makes

the configurational approach more powerful in its

explanatory potential than a contingency one. Sev-

eral authors (Dess et al., 1997; Miller, 1986; Miller

and Friesen, 1984) compare configurations with

contingencies. They argue that it is an oversimpli-

fication to assume that the same relationships exist

among variables, no matter what the other aspects of

organizational context, since contingencies differ,

depending on context itself. Configurations are

predictively useful in the descriptive sense, since a

few common configurations can account for the

variety in a large proportion of organizations. A

partial understanding of the dynamics of a particular

organization is sufficient to predict other features of

the same organization, given its configuration

(Meyer et al., 1993; Miller, 1986). Hence, an

understanding of stakeholder orientations within a

configuration can predict how the organization will

handle its approach to and role in society.

Middle-range theory, developed by sociologist

Merton (1968), used to explain how the pieces of

each configuration act together, occupies the ground

between narrow empiricism and grand universal

theory. Theory of the middle range is especially

suited at the level of typologies (Doty and Glick,

1994; Pinder and Moore, 1979). By their very nat-

ure, configurations are not prone to incremental

change because multiple interlocking elements

mutually reinforce the overall pattern of the con-

figuration when any one or two contingencies are

disturbed. Real change implies a realignment of all

the elements into another viable configuration

(Meyer et al., 1993).

Configurations may be discovered empirically or

conceptually, according to Miller and Friesen

(1984). The empirical approach finds clusters of

similar organizations from multivariate analyses of

descriptive data. The conceptual approach, adopted

in the creation of this stakeholder/CSR framework,

synthesizes the literature, logically incorporating

empirical findings and theoretical explanations.

The article first presents the stakeholder logic of

the four configurations within the framework.

Then, the framework is used to depict how each of

the four organizational configurations would behave

in terms of its approach to CSR. Thus, the article

demonstrates that while there is no grand theory to

give one definitive answer to what firms should and

can do in relation to civil society, the variety is not

infinite but is distillable into the four fundamental

approaches concentrating on ‘what firms are actually

doing’ (Margolis and Walsh, 2003, p. 278), offering

prototypical examples. It examines the issues at the

unit of the individual company, whereby each type

is explained within its own processes and inter-

locking features. Then, the article presents its theo-

retical and practical implications in the final section,

including an inductive research agenda.

A framework of stakeholder orientation

configurations

It is clear that business responds to multiple stake-

holders for myriad reasons in different ways (Berrone

et al., 2007; Brickson, 2007; Clarkson, 1991, 1995;

Jones et al., 2007). The proposed framework delin-

eates this variety of approaches to stakeholders

parsimoniously into a finite number of four config-

urations that explains their broad CSR approaches.

Each configuration consists of clusters of interactive

value system and behavioral characteristics, unique

to that configuration (Fiss, 2007). Since the frame-

work is concerned with CSR approaches, it is par-

ticularly apt to use stakeholder theory, notably

instrumental and normative stakeholder theories

(Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1994) as a

central parameter to construct the configurations.

Approaches to stakeholders are a way of accessing

aspects of CSR (Jamali, 2008) and expressing orga-

nizational identity (Berrone et al., 2007; Brickson,

2005, 2007). Phillips (2003) regards the stakeholder

domain as notably applicable to organizational

analysis. He argues that one of the features of an

ethics of organizations is that they have ‘substantive

aims’ (p. 56). In the configurational approach, the

firm is deemed to have visions, strategies, goals, and

responsibilities. A perspective of organizations as

responsible entities perceives them as possessing an

ethic of their own, with intent toward stakeholders

and a capacity to act for or against their interests

(Moir, 2001; Pruzan, 2001). The corporation has a

‘personality’ that reflects modes of thinking, behav-

ior, values, and corporate identity (Kay, 1997; Van

de Ven, 2008).

158 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

In a similar manner to Donaldson and Preston

(1995), Freeman (1994) unpacks stakeholder theory

into normative, descriptive, and instrumental dimensions,

but he adds a fourth metaphorical dimension as ‘a

genre of stories about how we could live’ (p. 413).

The framework integrates all four of Freeman’s

dimensions: It is grounded in the normative and

instrumental dimensions; it is descriptive in portraying

extant organizational-stakeholder attitudes and rela-

tionships in different types of firms. The framework

is metaphorical since each configuration or organiza-

tional ‘story’ can be construed as having its own

distinctive character, portrayed by its title name,

which captures a rich interlocking configuration of

dynamic relationships among organizational values,

motives, and behavioral dispositions. With respect to

normative and instrumental stances toward stake-

holders, critically, the framework recognizes that, in

practice, the normative and instrumental can operate

independently of each other, or together, or not at

all, yielding four possible combinations of stake-

holder orientations. Each combination of these

variables, as embodied in a configuration derived

from stakeholder theory, then suggests what attri-

butes and behavior one might expect to see (Bennett

and Elman, 2007). The normative and instrumental

need not be antithetical, as traditionally presented,

and the existence of mixed motives is realized (Di-

Norcia and Tigner, 2000).

Figure 1 gives an overview of the framework and

the four configurations. Before delineating the

configurations in detail, the normative and instru-

mental stakeholder dimensions, and the sense in

which they are applied, is presented.

The normative view

The normative approach to stakeholders draws on its

rationale from a variety of sources. These include

legal precedent, property rights (Donaldson and

Preston, 1995), a Doctrine of Fair Contracts (Free-

man, 1994), Integrated Social Contracts Theory

(ISCT) (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999), communi-

tarian thinking (Etzioni, 1998), and the psychology

of managers (Donaldson, 1999). Foremost among

the philosophical traditions supporting normative

stakeholder approaches are Kantianism (Bowie,

1999) and fairness (Phillips, 2003). It is in the sense

of these last two stakeholder conceptions that the

normative dimension is applied to the stakeholder/

CSR framework. This is consistent with the inter-

pretation of the normative dimension applied by

Donaldson and Preston (1995, p. 67) when they

defined normative stakeholders as ‘persons or groups

with legitimate interests in procedural and/or sub-

stantive aspects of corporate activity, identified by

their interests in the corporation, whether the cor-

poration has any corresponding functional interest in

them’. The worth of stakeholders does not derive

from worth created for others (Donaldson, 2008).

Consistent with Donaldson’s stance, Bowie

(1999) confirms a normative stakeholder view that

cannot support any action that violates the respect,

dignity, and just consideration due to legitimate

stakeholders, based on a Kantian perspective. Among

the precepts of a moral firm, Bowie also suggests that

every profit-making firm has an imperfect duty of

beneficence, calling on arguments from citizenship

and from gratitude. ‘Corporate citizens’, whose

creation and continued existence are dependent on

society, are expected to contribute to that society.

On the gratitude front, corporations tend to owe the

state more than they contribute in taxes. Fairness

underpinning stakeholder theory is manifested when

all the firm’s stakeholders are recompensed in the

measure that they have incurred costs and damages,

even if the firm has not benefited from those

stakeholder inputs (Bowie, 1999; Phillips, 2003).

This equates to Kaler’s (2006) notion of those with a

moral claim as being stakeholders. Hosmer and

Kiewitz (2005) also take up the fairness concept as

critical in normative stakeholder theory. They en-

dorse four forms of justice – distributive, procedural,

interactional, and informational – that the firm must

IN S

T R

U M

E N

T A

L

HIGH

LOW

LOW

Pragmatic Example – Coca Cola

Engaged Example - Unilever

Skeptical Example – Exxon Mobil

Idealistic Examples – Body Shop; Ben & Jerry’s;

Social Entrepreneurs

NORMATIVE HIGH

Fig. 1. Stakeholder orientation framework.

159Corporations, Civil Society and Stakeholders

afford to stakeholders. Others might go beyond

immediate fairness considerations, to those of

inherited or derivative obligations. For example, if a

company benefits from low wages prevailing in a

country whose government abnegates its responsi-

bilities to provide for the basic health, education, etc.

of its people, the benefiting company steps in to fill

these welfare shortcomings. These are role specific,

perfect responsibilities on the part of the company,

because the local population which has the role of

hosting the company is acknowledged as having the

right to expect recompense from the company,

which has a corresponding obligation (Kaler, 2003).

Finally, there are those who go so far as to argue that

companies owe beneficence to everyone in needy

societies, even if they do not affect those societies

directly, because of the desire for the common good

(Reed, 2002), making everyone a potential stake-

holder, thereby far extending the identification of

potential stakeholders.

The instrumental view

A firm recognizes instrumental stakeholders as those

whom it requires to achieve the ends of the firm

and/or its principals. The needs of stakeholders, their

intrinsic well-being, and their fair treatment are of

secondary interest. These will be catered to only

insofar as they must, to ensure the inputs desired

from the stakeholders concerned. Phillips (2003)

justifies instrumental behavior toward a certain class

of stakeholders whose legitimacy is ‘derivative’.

Kaler (2002) would see them as influencers. These

stakeholders may have no normative claim, but they

can help or harm the firm. Thus, they must be dealt

with accordingly to protect the firm and to fulfill

primary obligations to normative stakeholders.

A stakeholder overview of the four

organizational configurations

The four organizational types vary on a number of

factors ultimately relevant to CSR: organizational

purposes; stakeholder identification and salience;

stakeholder management, performance metrics; and

the boundaries between the firm and stakeholders

(Margolis and Walsh, 2003). The descriptions that

follow are idealized prototypes, portrayed in Table I,

which summarizes the main features of each of the

four configurations.

Organizational purposes

How does the organization conceive of its organi-

zational purposes, i.e., why and for whose benefit

does the company exist? What role, if any, do

stakeholders play in achieving its purposes?

Skeptical configuration companies’ identity is

consistent with the view of the firm as a bundle of

assets which exists solely to provide benefits to its

shareholders/‘owners’ (Schneper and Guillen, 2004).

As per the traditional shareholder versus stakeholder

divide, the Skeptical company does not recognize

stakeholders per se (Letza et al., 2004). Shareholders/

owners alone hold a ‘stake’ in the firm, giving them

the rights to participate in its profits via dividends, its

prospects via capital gains, and its control via voting

rights and approval of directors (Metcalfe, 1998).

The Skeptical firm is not unaware of what Phillips

(2003) designates ‘derivative stakeholders’, but it

would regard them as ‘influencers’, which should be

taken into consideration only to the extent that they

aid or impede the attainment of strategic objectives

(Kaler, 2002). Skeptical firms include those in con-

troversial industries, such as tobacco or gaming

companies. The Skeptical firm also deals with

stakeholders, albeit reluctantly, when the law re-

quires. For example, oil major Exxon (net income in

2008 was $45.2 billion) battled in the courts for

19 years to overturn a punitive fine of $5 billion

awarded against the company to the victims of the

1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Arguably,

ingrained systemic management practices had facili-

tated the disaster in the first place (Hosmer, 1998).

Exxon claimed it had already spent $3.4 billion for

cleanup and compensatory payments, settlements,

and fines. Having fought all the way to the Supreme

Court, in 2008, the company succeeded in having

the fine reduced to $507 million, and so the pay-

ment per person affected (arguably normative

stakeholders) dropped from $75,000 to $15,000.

The Pragmatic firm is instrumental in its recog-

nition of stakeholders, embracing ‘enlightened

stakeholder theory’ in its management of relation-

ships with important constituencies, to optimize

160 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

economic performance. Campbell (1997) argues that

in the ‘economic jungle’, the company needs the

loyalty of its ‘active’ stakeholders. Notably, he de-

fines active stakeholders as those who can affect the

firm’s performance, whose ‘demands are unquench-

able’ (p. 447). Thus, both Skeptical and Pragmatic

firms are single objective in purpose, although

Pragmatic firms are pluralist in the style in which

they implement their strategies. Coca Cola exem-

plifies a Pragmatic company, as it reacts to criticisms

over its water depletion and pollution causing

activities in developing countries by establishing ad

hoc projects to deal with water quality, nutrition, and

education in communities where it operates. It also

publishes an elaborate CSR report, wherein it

addresses the readers in a letter from the CEO as

‘Dear stakeholder’.

The long-term sustainability of the company is at

the heart of the Engaged corporation’s purposes. It

attempts to safeguard itself into the future, by cre-

ating a self-perpetuating virtuous cycle that is good

for all stakeholders, including owners, enabling it to

serve two purposes simultaneously. This kind of

virtuous cycle is depicted very eloquently by Davies

(1999) in the notion of ‘Tomorrow’s Company’,

which ‘treat(s) stakeholders as the spokes of a wheel

– all are needed to move forward and each takes the

load in turn’ (p. 194). Therefore, doing well for all

stakeholders is synonymous with doing well for the

firm, achieving its economic ends by means that

fulfill its deeper purposes and ethical values. It rejects

the traditional trade-off between financial and social

objectives (DiNorcia and Tigner, 2000), preferring

shared values and aspirations among all the firm’s

stakeholders. Similarly, Jones and Wicks (1999)

propose that unitary or ‘convergent’ stakeholder

theory is both normatively sound and practically

viable, based on a rationale that trusting relationships

with stakeholders is good business practice. Unile-

ver, the Anglo-Dutch consumer goods company,

exemplifies such an Engaged company, as it pursues

economic ends in ways that engage positively with

its legitimate stakeholders (Senge et al., 2006).

The Idealistic firm prioritizes the normative, in

pursuit of an ideal world where stakeholders,

selected from a wide pool, matter. The priority

purpose of the firm’s existence is to serve society,

and the firm is a medium for serving stakeholder

interests (Etzioni, 1998). Economic activities are a

T A

B L E

I

F ea

tu re

s o f

th e

st ak

eh o ld

er o ri

en ta

ti o n

fr am

ew o rk

S k ep

ti ca

l P ra

g m

at ic

E n g ag

ed Id

ea li st

ic

O rg

an iz

at io

n al

p u rp

o se

S h ar

eh o ld

er s/

o w

n er

w el

fa re

S h ar

eh o ld

er s/

o w

n er

w el

fa re

F ir

m w

el fa

re ,

em b ra

ci n g

le g it im

at e

st ak

eh o ld

er s

S o ci

et y

w el

fa re

S ta

k eh

o ld

er ID

/s al

ie n ce

N o

st ak

eh o ld

er s,

o n ly

‘g en

er al

in fl u en

ce rs

’

P o w

er an

d u rg

en cy

N o rm

at iv

e le

g it im

ac y ,

p o w

er an

d

u rg

en cy

, p lu

s d er

iv at

iv e

st ak

eh o ld

er s

N o rm

at iv

e le

g it im

ac y ,

d ep

en d en

cy ,

u rg

en cy

S ta

k eh

o ld

er m

an ag

em en

t R

ea ct

iv e,

co m

p li an

t,

im p er

so n al

C o n v en

ti o n al

, en

li g h te

n ed

se lf -i

n te

re st

, m

it ig

at e

st ak

eh o ld

er p o w

er

F ai

rn es

s, in

te rd

ep en

d en

cy ,

re la

ti o n sh

ip s,

d ia

lo g u e,

tr u st

B en

efi ce

n t

p at

ro n

P er

fo rm

an ce

m et

ri cs

S h ar

eh o ld

er re

tu rn

s P ro

fi ta

b il it y ,

m ar

k et

sh ar

e,

sh ar

eh o ld

er re

tu rn

s

V ir

tu o u s

cy cl

e o f

fi n an

ci al

p er

fo rm

an ce

an d

co rp

o ra

te

so ci

al p er

fo rm

an ce

C o rp

o ra

te so

ci al

im p ac

t

F ir

m an

d st

ak eh

o ld

er

b o u n d ar

ie s

F ir

m d is cr

et e

fr o m

so ci

et y

F ir

m d is cr

et e

fr o m

so ci

et y

In te

g ra

te d

in to

so ci

al n et

w o rk

s

w it h

v ar

ie ty

o f

st ak

eh o ld

er s

L in

k ag

es w

it h

se lf -c

h o se

n

co n st

it u en

ci es

161Corporations, Civil Society and Stakeholders

means toward those social ends, not the other way

around. Managers would opt for the normative

solution in case of a conflict between the instru-

mental and the normative. In general, companies

founded by social entrepreneurs exemplify the Ide-

alistic configuration. Examples of companies in this

category are the toiletries retailer, The Body Shop,

and the ice cream company, Ben and Jerry’s, both of

which were originally founded by owners who used

their companies as vehicles to pursue social aims and

serve stakeholders of their personal choosing.

Stakeholder identification and salience

The different organizational purposes of the four

configurational types, in turn, imply different criteria

for designating who is a stakeholder, and the salience

of designated stakeholders to the firm in achieving its

purposes.

Stakeholder identification is not an issue to

Skeptical firms. This does not preclude dealing

strategically with persons or groups who can help or

hinder the firm, no different to coping with other

important influences. Although it does not recognize

stakeholders, the Skeptical firm is not absolved from

moral obligations toward human beings in general

(Phillips, 2003). Even when considering moral

obligations to all people, Skeptical firms are likely to

practice moral relativism as they maneuver their way

into competitive advantage. Exxon, denounced by

various environmental NGOs and concerned

shareholders, has traditionally been a laggard in

spending on finding renewable energy sources and

in acknowledging the existence of climate change.

However, under pressure, by 2008, the company

launched a campaign, proclaiming its leadership in

solving the global energy challenge by means of

efficiency and technology to secure energy supplies

in an environmentally friendly way, and acknowl-

edging climate change as an issue.

The instrumental stance of Pragmatic firms

advocates that the company must act to please

powerful stakeholders who have the coercive, util-

itarian, or symbolic resources that the company

requires to achieve desired results. According to

Mitchell et al. (1997), salience of particular stake-

holders derives from their power, legitimacy, and

urgency with respect to the focal firm. Michael

Porter’s (1998) popular competitive strategy frame-

work basically exhorts companies to reduce the

power of certain salient stakeholders to attain com-

petitive advantage. As moral relativists, Pragmatic

firms may actually inflict harm on less powerful

stakeholders to serve more powerful ones, regardless

of the normative legitimacy of the less powerful.

Coca Cola defended its continuing sponsorship of

the Olympics in Beijing, against critics who deplore

China’s human rights record, and support of a re-

gime which apparently practices genocide in Sudan.

Coca Cola itself operates in Sudan, despite an em-

bargo, by using a loophole. Coca Cola’s defense rests

on its longstanding support for Olympic ideals and

investment of $5 million for clean water in Sudan

(Coca Cola 2008 net income was $5.8 billion) and

various other projects in health and education, as

well as claiming a behind-the-scenes search for a

socio-political solution (Isdell, 2008).

In Engaged firms, the power of stakeholders is not

ignored, but normative obligations – duties of fair-

ness toward legitimate stakeholders, consent, stake-

holders as ends in themselves – prevent subverting

the rights of a group of legitimate stakeholders in

favor of another more powerful but less legitimate

one, unless it had longer-term beneficial conse-

quences for the less powerful group with normative

claims. Legitimate stakeholders emerge naturally in

the course of everyday business with those in the

Engaged firm’s task environment (Zenisek, 1979).

Especially important are those with firm-specific

commitments, such as employees, managers, share-

holders, creditors, and the local community (Blair

and Stout, 1999). Thus, Engaged firms regard

responsibilities to firm-specific stakeholders and

shareholders as role specific and perfect (Kaler,

2003). They integrate both power and legitimacy in

stakeholder identification and salience. While diffi-

cult to effect practically, such a reconciliation may be

achieved through Phillips’ (2003) formulation of

two types of stakeholders – those whose status is

based on normative foundations, and the derivative

stakeholders whose status is based on their power.

Engaged firms become institutionalized in their

normative orientation, contrary to Pragmatic ones

which adopt temporary, ad hoc, ‘as if’ normative

attitudes to stakeholders. This ‘as if’ normative

behavior (Donaldson, 1999) in Pragmatic firms will

be non-resistant to economic pressures to abandon

162 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

it, since they regard responsibilities to stakeholders as

‘imperfect’, i.e., discretionary (Kaler, 2003). In

contrast, in a conflict between the normative and

instrumental, the Engaged firm would try to resolve

the conflict by finding an imaginative resolution in

collaboration with affected stakeholders (Driver,

2006; Maharaj, 2008).

Idealistic organizations acknowledge as legitimate

stakeholders only those with normative claims on

the firm, dismissing Phillips’ (2003) derivative

stakeholders. However, the Idealistic firm would

designate as normative a wider range of stakeholders

than the other organizational types. Whereas the

Engaged firm acknowledges as normative stake-

holders those in its task environment, with an

interest in the firm and affected by its operations, the

Idealistic firm extends its designation of its stake-

holders beyond this, shouldering responsibility for

those it would like to help, extending role-speci-

ficity and perfect obligations very widely (Kaler,

2003). Indeed, Idealistic firms see their managers as

fiduciaries for all of society, the broadest view of

what is a stakeholder, and one questioned by those

with an anti-stakeholder inclination (Kaler, 2006).

Many Idealistic firms are established with the express

intention of addressing a particular cause or stake-

holder class, as happens with social entrepreneurs

(Nicholls 2006).

Stakeholder management

The four organizational types base their decisions

and actions with respect to stakeholders on their

different approaches toward strategic analysis.

The Skeptical firm carries out strengths–weak-

nesses–opportunities–threats (SWOT) analyses in

pursuit of competitive advantage, listing stakeholders

as opportunities or threats or competitive forces to

be dealt with in the same way as any pressures. This

stance corresponds to coercion (Stoney and Win-

stanley, 2001) or ‘reactivity’ (Clarkson, 1991, 1995).

Skeptical firms deal with these ‘forces’, complying

with prohibitions and obligations, although they can

cross the line into manipulation (Arnstein, 1969). As

examples, tobacco companies provide selective flat-

tering information in their CSR reports; Exxon

ranks in the lowest tier among oil companies on

openness about sums paid to host countries for oil,

and other details of its revenues, according to a

survey by Transparency International, the anti-cor-

ruption watchdog (www.transparency.org).

The instrumentalist affirmation of stakeholder

power in Pragmatic firms finds its expression in

stakeholder mapping techniques, whereby high

power/interest/urgency stakeholders are designated

as key players, thus demanding the undivided

attention of management. This corresponds to

Clarkson’s (1991, 1995) ‘defensive’ category, doing

only what is required, taking a public relations ap-

proach. These firms are likely to abandon stake-

holders as soon as their common interests cease to

coincide, or there is no business case for it (Steger

et al., 2007). Pragmatic organizations may forestall

stakeholder activism through various mechanisms,

including placation and co-optation which may take

the form of ‘dialogue’ with hand-selected stake-

holder focus groups, often mediated by consultants

hired by the firm (Thomson and Bebbington, 2005).

Engaged firms may also use stakeholder mapping,

but as a starting point to help identify both norma-

tive and instrumental stakeholders and their interests.

The Engaged configuration, which embraces both

the normative and instrumental, is consistent with

‘accommodation’ and being ‘proactive’, since it ac-

cepts responsibility and does all that is required, but

may go further when it makes sense in terms of its

relationships and business model (Clarkson, 1991,

1995). Engaged firms move on to dialogue and

exploration of issues of common concern to the firm

and the identified stakeholders. It is suggested that

the implementation of fairness at the core of stake-

holder legitimacy should take place in a context of

cooperation and communicative action (Roloff,

2008). The quality of the interaction and relation-

ships between the Engaged firm and its stakeholders

can be distinguished from that of the Pragmatic firm.

In the latter, interaction with stakeholders may take

place largely for public relations, placatory, or

compliance reasons.

Thomson and Bebbington (2005) point out that

compliance with codified CSR standards such as

AA1000 has little to do with stakeholder engage-

ment. (AA1000, issued by the Institute of Social and

Ethical Accountability, is one of a myriad of CSR

performance standards proposed by various bodies

positioning themselves as social auditors and certifi-

cation organizations.) Genuine stakeholder engage-

163Corporations, Civil Society and Stakeholders

ment implies the discussion of issues which concern

stakeholders within an explicit mutually reflexive

accountability context, placing stakeholders as co-

principals, rather than as objects – circumstances

likelier to prevail in the Engaged firm than in the

other configurations. It is ‘relational’, having moved

away from ‘managing’ stakeholders to building vig-

orous, long-term, resilient relationships with them

within networks (Lozano, 2005). These are media

for continuous learning, co-creating platforms for

mutual advantage, building communities of practice

to develop knowledge, innovation, and an accu-

mulation of critical resources from a diversity of

competencies and perspectives, in an ongoing

atmosphere of trust (Roloff, 2008).

In Idealistic firms, an internally generated ‘phi-

losophy’ or ‘ethos’ dictates approaches to stake-

holders (Stoney and Winstanley, 2001). It is

‘proactive’, characterized by corporate behavior that

promotes the interests of stakeholders, broadly des-

ignated, exceeding requirements (Clarkson, 1991,

1995). Sometimes, their principled stance toward

stakeholders is an intrinsic part of their unique

positioning, and self-professed Idealistic firms may

use social actions as a way of reinforcing their own

social identity and image, as have Ben and Jerry’s and

The Body Shop.

Performance metrics

It follows that since each of the four configurations

has different purposes, they should assess their success

in performance according to their purpose, consistent

with how they are trying to achieve those purposes in

terms of their stakeholder management practices.

Since the Skeptical firm sees itself as answerable

only to shareholders and optimizing shareholder

welfare, it would aim to maximize classic share-

holder value creation measures.

The purely instrumental perspective of the Prag-

matic firm means that intermediate financial and

market performance, such as profitability and market

share gains ultimately impact shareholder returns.

These intermediate measures are boosted because

the firm performs well in its business operations

through its supposed due attention to powerful

stakeholders. This is eventually rewarded when the

shareholders gain.

The long-term viability of the Engaged firms’

approach depends on the supposition that firms

which are doing well financially have the means to

invest in Corporate Social Performance (CSP),

which in turn, contributes to enhanced financial

performance, providing overall ‘positive synergy’ in

a self-reinforcing performance cycle (Waddock and

Graves, 1997). Engaged firms are more likely to

justify their CSR activities on values and motivation

than on assigning precise metrics to demonstrate the

business case (Steger et al., 2007). Thus, in Engaged

firms, awareness of stakeholder concerns may inau-

gurate a virtuous cycle that contributes to both

stakeholder and strategic performance. Senge et al.

(2006) show how Unilever’s work with a number of

partners on projects in developing countries is of real

value to various beneficiary stakeholders and to

Unilever itself, within a learning context.

Idealistic firms reckon their success to the extent

that they satisfy or benefit their legitimate stake-

holders as an end in itself, where anyone whose

needs they feel obliged to answer qualifies as their

stakeholder.

The boundaries between the firm and stakeholders

The corporation can see itself as a private body,

separate to society, defined as a nexus of contracts

and a set of relationships between principals and

agents (Kay and Silberston, 1995; Schneper and

Guillen, 2004). In contrast, the corporation can see

itself as a social institution, a vehicle for executing

the interests of a wide variety of stakeholders from

within and without, with the boundary between the

corporation and society regarded as permeable or

even non-existent.

Skeptical and Pragmatic firms perceive themselves

as discrete entities within their wider environments.

In a typology of stakeholder identity developed by

Brickson (2005), both Skeptical and Pragmatic firms

could be seen as Individualistic in the way that they

promote their own uniqueness and welfare. The

nature of their contractual view of relationships is

transactional for both Skeptical and Pragmatic firms,

but Skeptical ones are likelier to regard contracts as

more impersonal, whereby the firm is defined as

‘a group of people who find it expedient every

morning to renew their contracts with each other’

164 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

(Kay, 1997, p. 135). Exxon resisted the will of the

descendants of John D. Rockefeller, the company

founder, when they and other shareholders chal-

lenged its corporate governance structures and its

reluctance to finding alternative energy sources. It was

easy to ignore the Rockefeller family when the

company posted the second largest ever first quarter

profit ($10.9 billion) in US history in 2008. Pragmatic

firms would not be as unresponsive, since the salience

of ongoing relationships with individuals and groups is

important, albeit, assessed in instrumental terms. This

attitude is seen in Coca-Cola’s ad hoc social projects.

The Engaged firm acknowledges its mutual

interdependence with its internal and external

stakeholders. It recognizes multiple objectives and an

array of stakeholders with legitimate claims on the

firm through its primary and secondary interaction

within the milieus within which it operates, as a

node in a complex network of interrelated stake-

holders (Roloff, 2008). Hence, it is embedded in

civil society through these stakeholder obligations

and networks (Lozano, 2005), part of its task envi-

ronment (Zenisek, 1979). Simultaneously, the En-

gaged firm, anchored in economic reality, takes its

role seriously in the efficient provision of goods and

services. Thus, Engaged firms can be seen as hybrid

Relational/Collectivistic/Individualistic in Brick-

son’s (2005) stakeholder typology, since they con-

nect specifically to stakeholders with whom they

have a particular relationship, while still viewing the

organization as part of an extended collective.

Moreover, they have to pursue economic aims at the

same time. Interpreting and fulfilling these concur-

rent roles involves a strong normative dimension

(Phillips, 2003), exemplified in serious stakeholder

dialogue conducted by Unilever to promote sus-

tainable food production (Senge et al., 2006). Also,

investors, interested in a social agenda, may well be

attracted to Engaged companies.

Idealistic firms strive for civil society enhance-

ment through selected causes and initiatives, which

may or may not be related to their main business.

Thus, they may not be as embedded as Engaged

firms. The limits they place on their stakeholder

involvements are discretionary, perhaps based on

management preferences, often from concentrated

owners, as in the Ben and Jerry’s and Body Shop

cases. Both companies actively pursued selected so-

cial causes whilst majority owned by their idealistic

founders. Alternatively, Idealistic firms’ causes may

be backed by their activist social investment funds

(Nicholls, 2006). Since they do not confine them-

selves to those whom they affect in their task envi-

ronment, even indirectly, Idealistic firms regard an

extensive swathe of potential stakeholders as their

concern and therefore as being responsible to them.

In Brickson’s (2005) typology, Idealistic firms are

collectivist, but paradoxically individualistic, often

acutely self-conscious of their own unique identity.

An example is Anita Roddick, founder of The Body

Shop, who entitled her book Business as Unusual and

stated that she was inclined to see where her com-

petitors were going and turn 180� (Roddick, 2005).

Organizational CSR preferences

Corporate involvement with civil society is open to

discretion, and a great deal of variety in attitudes and

behavior is seen in the way this discretion is exercised

via CSR. In the configurational framework, the way

that a firm expresses its broader interactions with

society through its CSR preferences is intertwined

with the way it perceives and deals with stakeholders.

The stakeholder orientation framework is able to

classify the variety of CSR approaches within the four

organizational configurations. These are delineated

under a number of categories, significant in under-

standing CSR attitudes and behavior. The categories

are: how the firm senses stimuli for CSR involvement;

how response options are generated and evaluated;

how the chosen option is implemented; and impact on

the firm itself (Driver, 2006; Margolis and Walsh,

2003). Table II summarizes the CSR preference

stances of the four types of firms.

Sensing stimuli for CSR involvement

What provokes CSR involvement by companies?

How do they become conscious of a social need that

they can fill, and why should they want to act on this

knowledge?

Skeptical firms are not sensitized to notice the

needs of civil society in their environmental scan-

ning, although they may take up what amount to

CSR behaviors in response to some perceived

opportunities and threats, as a specific strategic

solution. When Exxon contracted to build a pipeline

165Corporations, Civil Society and Stakeholders

carrying oil from Chad, an African country, the

company was placed under certain obligations to

make provision for health and education resources

for the affected local population. These conditions,

and others, regarding environmental preservation,

and essential facilities for the inhabitants came about

after pressure from up to 250 NGOs and the World

Bank, groups whose consent was a necessary part of

Exxon’s license to operate in Chad.

Pragmatic companies may sense initially that they

had better get involved from strategic analysis

exercises, such as mapping techniques, or from

stakeholder forums. They take action for defensive

reasons if they are under pressure to do so from

stakeholders on whom they depend, and to whose

power they defer. More positive reasons may also

propel Pragmatic firms to act on behalf of dependent

stakeholders. It may be a reputation bolstering

exercise. For example, Coca Cola actively proclaims

its AIDS prevention and treatment programs for its

employees in Africa to legitimize its operations, but

it also enhances the reliability of its workforce.

Engaged firms obtain feedback in dialogue with

primary and secondary stakeholders in their networks

to bring attention to social needs where they might

play a role. Similar to Pragmatic firms, they attend to

signals from powerful stakeholders. However, they

also attend to messages from less powerful stake-

holders, i.e., those who are considered legitimate on

a normative basis. The Engaged firm aspires to

compensate individuals and groups affected by the

firm, according to the fairness principle (Phillips,

2003). An instance of an Engaged company’s notion

of its normative obligations might arise if it employs

large numbers of workers in developing countries.

The company may receive more in terms of payroll

savings, tax breaks, and grants than it has put back

into the economy. Thus, it can be argued that it

should offset the shortfall by providing training,

education, and healthcare for its workers and

recompense others adversely affected by its presence

in the country. This is in line with Bowie’s (1999)

declaration of beneficence out of obligation or

Kaler’s (2003) role-specific perfect responsibilities.

Further, Engaged companies would accept Hsieh’s

(2004) extended notion of beneficence beyond their

task environment if it is a matter of ‘rescue’. This

must satisfy three conditions: the harm in question is

a grave one; the company is in a position to correct

T A

B L E

II

O rg

an iz

at io

n al

C S R

p re

fe re

n ce

s

S k ep

ti ca

l P ra

g m

at ic

E n g ag

ed Id

ea li st

ic

S en

si n g

st im

u li

to C

S R

in v o lv

em en

t

N o n e

re la

ti n g

to C

S R

P o w

er an

d u rg

en cy

o f

st ak

eh o ld

er s

L eg

it im

ac y

o f

st ak

eh o ld

er s

b as

ed o n

fa ir

n es

s in

ta sk

en v ir

o n m

en t;

p o w

er an

d

u rg

en cy

o f

st ak

eh o ld

er s

O w

n p u rp

o se

s, u rg

en t

an d

n ee

d y

co n st

it u en

ci es

,

fa ir

n es

s

G en

er at

io n ,

ev al

u at

io n

o f

o p ti o n s

In ci

d en

ta l

S tr

at eg

ic an

al y si s,

in st

ru m

en ta

ll y

lo g ic

al ,

m im

et ic

D is co

u rs

e, b al

an ce

o f

in te

re st

s

(fi rm

an d

le g it im

at e

st ak

e

h o ld

er s)

A n sw

er in

g se

lf -c

h o se

n

so ci

al n ee

d s

Im p le

m en

ta ti

o n

B y -p

ro d u ct

o f

st ra

te g y

E p is o d ic

, o u ts

o u rc

in g

p o p u la

r

L o n g -t

er m

o n g o in

g

d ev

el o p m

en ta

l, in

p ar

tn er

sh ip

E p is o d ic

o r

co n ti n u o u s;

se lf ,

o u ts

o u rc

in g

o r

p ar

tn er

in g

Im p ac

t o n

th e

fi rm

L ar

g el

y u n ch

an g ed

L ar

g el

y u n ch

an g ed

P o te

n ti al

fo r

su b st

an ti al

le ar

n in

g an

d in

te rn

al

d ev

el o p m

en t

L ar

g el

y u n ch

an g ed

166 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

the harm, and prevention or reversal of the harm is of

little cost relative to the harm eradicated. An example

that satisfies these conditions is Unilever’s engage-

ment in a research project with the NGO, Oxfam, to

investigate and enhance the impacts of MNCs on

poverty reduction in developing countries.

The Idealistic firm takes its normative responsibil-

ities even further, acting for the benefit of those it

designates as stakeholders, beyond its direct and

indirect task environment. On a Kantian basis, it

acknowledges a duty of beneficence from citizenship

(the common good), or of gratitude (to make up for

shortfalls in its contribution) (Bowie, 1999). Consis-

tent with the arguments of critical theorists, Idealistic

companies from developed countries operating in

developing countries, especially those which lack the

political, economic, and sociocultural conditions en-

joyed by people in developed countries, feel obliged

to compensate for these shortcomings, to direct

stakeholders and the wider community alike (Reed,

2002). They advocate that companies from developed

countries should provide the civil and political rights

that negligent or corrupt agents fail to provide to the

populace in developing countries. This is on the basis

that they are there on the sufferance of the people

rather than by the rights granted by a legitimate

authority.

In summary, Skeptical firms are not stimulated to

CSR per se. Pragmatic firms are stimulated to CSR by

powerful stakeholders, especially with urgent de-

mands. Engaged firms are stimulated by powerful and

legitimate stakeholders in the firm’s task environment,

based primarily on fairness. Idealistic firms are stimu-

lated to social action by their own purposes and by

legitimate and urgent stakeholders. Legitimacy is

based on need and urgency, as perceived by the Ide-

alistic firm.

Generation and evaluation of CSR options

When they decide to take sociopolitical action, how

do firms generate their potential responses? On what

bases do they determine what action to take? Whom

do they involve in the decision process and how?

The way companies habitually take decisions with

respect to their stakeholder orientation offers insights

about decision making with respect to CSR.

Skeptical firms do not expressly consider taking

social action. However, when Skeptical firms rec-

ognize the strategic advantages of a particular stra-

tegic or tactical approach, it may have secondary

incidental social impacts, beneficial or detrimental

(DiNorcia and Tigner, 2000). For example, in cer-

tain circumstances, Skeptical firms might find it

expedient to provide philanthropic donations for

social programs to strengthen their competitive

positioning, as Exxon does. Skeptical firms might

also try to divert attention away from otherwise

questionable activities. Examples may be found in

tobacco companies which subsidize medical research

or alcoholic beverage producers which contribute

to, or even organize, anti-binge drinking campaigns.

The costs and benefits of CSR are weighed up

carefully by Pragmatic companies for their effects on

the bottom line and/or shareholder well-being.

Since the social actions of Pragmatic firms are carried

out for instrumental reasons in pursuit of economic

objectives, they are assessed only on the extent to

which they satisfy these economic objectives.

Alternatives are assessed to find the one that puts the

firm into the most advantageous position vis-à-vis its

salient stakeholders, either by answering the de-

mands of the stakeholders sufficiently to placate

them, or, mitigating their power over the firm. For

example, banks, which are under pressure from

NGOs not to finance projects that harm the envi-

ronment or involve human rights abuses, may agree

to refrain from individual loans on an ad hoc basis

(Maitland, 2004). This example illustrates the

piecemeal episodic approach adopted by Pragmatic

firms to CSR involvement. Pragmatic firms also

copy precedents by other companies, where social

action has been used to enhance economic perfor-

mance. Indeed, stakeholder activism is giving rise to

a common set of institutionalized responses by cor-

porations, as seen in the mission statements and

glossy CSR reports now issued by all large compa-

nies, irrespective of underlying social values and

motives (Bartkus and Glassman, 2008).

The generation of alternative CSR options is

complex in Engaged firms, because they may have to

balance conflicting demands and to foresee a cascade

of consequences, rather than making just one simple

decision. Moreover, their method of generation

differs to that of Pragmatic companies, as Engaged

firms participate in discourse with all those primary

167Corporations, Civil Society and Stakeholders

and secondary stakeholders, to whom they believe

they owe fairness, often on specific issues (Roloff,

2008). They may also engage with a range of con-

stituencies, such as NGOs, to tap relevant expertise.

The benefits of dialogue are numerous. Apart from

resolving possible tension and obtaining cooperation,

it can build trust and reputation and reduce the risk of

public attacks on the company. Moreover, discourse

and collaboration with an extensive network of

stakeholders may also constitute opportunities to

generate more imaginative and entrepreneurial social

involvement alternatives that will ultimately yield

competitive advantages (Roloff, 2008). Unilever’s

multi-stakeholder projects on sustainable food pro-

vision and on mitigating poverty came out of this kind

of thinking.

There are risks in stakeholder dialogue around

social involvement: creating overly high expecta-

tions; sterile repetitive discussion; lack of internal

support within the firm or stakeholder groups; or a

breakdown of confidence and trust. Networking,

communication, and partnering skills and experience

are necessary to avoid these mishaps (Sagawa and

Segal, 2000; Zaheer and Bell, 2005). This implies a

requirement for a mentality that differs from the

debate, zero-sum game type of interaction to which

many managers are comfortably accustomed.

Idealistic firms may not have quite the range of

stakeholders that Engaged companies have in their

task environment, since they tend to be smaller,

more focused companies. Therefore, they are un-

likely to have the critical mass to be involved across a

broad spectrum. If they are Idealistic firms ab initio,

they may well be concentrating on some particular

aspect of social entrepreneurship. An example is

ApproTEC, a firm which creates and markets simple

and inexpensive tools in Tanzania and Kenya. Its

best known product is an irrigation pump called the

MoneyMaker, costing just $38–78. It eliminates the

need to draw water from wells with ropes and

buckets. The company was founded by entrepreneur

Martin Fischer, who went for many years without a

salary, gratified that ApproTEC’s products generated

an additional $33 million in wages and profit a year.

ApproTEC is supported by Geneva-based Schwab

Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, which

supports late-stage social entrepreneurs. Some Ide-

alistic companies may chop-and-change different

causes along the way, less integrated with the busi-

ness of the enterprise, depending on the predilec-

tions of the company leadership. The leaders may

have fixed ideas of what causes to support, and how,

so that they may go their own way, rather than plan

with others, even their beneficiaries, as was typical of

Anita Roddick in The Body Shop. This may leave

some Idealistic firms open to charges of meddling

and paternalism, perpetuating the dependency that

prevents beneficiaries from being enabled to manage

their own affairs (Margolis and Walsh, 2003).

In summary, as regards the generation and eval-

uation of CSR involvement options, Skeptical firms

may produce beneficial and/or harmful social effects

as a by-product of strategic decisions, not concerned

with CSR per se. Pragmatic companies use a com-

petitive strategic analysis and imitation of successful

firms to find alternative social activities, choosing

those that advance their economic goals as efficiently

and effectively as possible. Engaged firms hold dis-

course with stakeholders along with strategic analysis

to generate social action alternatives. In agreement

with their beneficiaries, other stakeholders and

partners, they choose those that offer the best sus-

tainable balance of effectiveness and efficiency for

the firm and its legitimate stakeholders. Idealistic

companies generate and evaluate social action alter-

natives in accordance with their own ethos and

purposes and their individualistic choices of CSR

projects.

Implementation of chosen CSR options

The nature of implementation of CSR involvement

is consistent with the reasoning behind the action, as

per the particular configuration, and varies according

as whether the company itself takes direct action, or

it is outsourced. Companies might work in part-

nership with others, often NGOs which brought the

need to the attention of the company initially.

Implementation may also vary along the temporal

dimension; the action taken ranges from once-off, to

ongoing and long-term.

The CSR activities of Skeptical companies are

merely by-products of their strategic approach, such

as Exxon’s activities in Chad, mentioned above.

Meanwhile, a Pragmatic company takes action on

the basis of enlightened self-interest, consistent with

its instrumental stance. A social project may be taken

168 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

on to resolve a particular stakeholder issue for the

company, which does what is in its own immediate

interest and may withdraw support if involvement

no longer suits that interest. For instance, Coca

Cola’s water quality projects in developing countries

are a direct response to allegations of water depletion

and contamination by the company in its operations.

Both Pragmatic and Engaged companies choose

CSR initiatives that are related to the stakeholder

domains of their task environment. However, the

Engaged firms behave in a way that not only en-

hances the economic purposes of the firm, but also

best achieves the intent of the action on behalf of its

beneficiaries and social outcomes, compatible with

normative principles, by working out an agenda

with others. Also similar to Pragmatic companies,

Engaged firms partner with others to take social

action. However, Engaged firms are more likely to

develop ongoing integrative collaborations that span

several projects to create lasting impact. The capacity

of Engaged firms to collaborate with stakeholders

may encourage them to form long-term alliances

with companies with which they trade, as well as

with other actors (Balogun and Hailey, 2004; Sag-

awa and Segal, 2000; Senge et al., 2006). It is

through such alliances, that the Engaged company

upgrades entrepreneurship and technical and mana-

gerial skills in its communities to spread best practice.

In addition, the Engaged company may develop

effective business networks or ecosystems. These can

include vertical supply–chain relationships and hor-

izontal clustering. The UN Commission on the

Private Sector & Development suggests that such

business ecosystems bypass weak regulatory envi-

ronments in developing countries by creating private

capacity for regulation and enforcement within the

network (UNDP, 2004). As more of these ecosys-

tems are established, best practice could become the

widespread norm, through mimetic processes. An

example of such a network is Hindustan Lever Ltd.,

a Unilever subsidiary in India. Its product sales

ecosystem includes 80 manufacturing facilities, 150

small and medium enterprise suppliers, employing

up to 40,000 people, 7000-plus stockists, 12,000

wholesalers and small retailers, 300,000 shop owners,

and 150,000 entrepreneurs in remote villages

(UNDP, 2004). Developing new business models to

cater to hitherto huge unserved markets of poor

consumers ‘at the bottom of the pyramid’ can add up

to value creation for the firm, and a better life and

dignity for the poor themselves (Prahalad, 2004).

Idealistic firms can be found engaging directly

with the local community in the context of their

core activities or through extracurricular good works

in the community. An example is Grupo Ecologico

Sierra Gordo in Mexico, founded by Pati Ruiz

Corozo, after abandoning a career as a violinist. The

company works with residents of the region to

preserve the environment with sustainable programs

including commercial tree planting and eco-tourism.

Idealistic firms are active, either on their own, or

working with NGOs. Since CSR involvement is

core to their mission, even when Idealistic firms

work with partners, they want direct control of

contact and activity with those whom they consider

their legitimate stakeholders or beneficiaries, a

characteristic of The Body Shop in its CSR projects.

In summary, as regards deliberate implementation

of CSR involvement, Skeptical firms may produce

beneficial social effects as spin-offs to their ordinary

strategic approaches. Both Pragmatic and Engaged

firms implement CSR by themselves or by out-

sourcing or partnership. However, Pragmatic firms

act in an episodic manner, depending on their own

needs entirely, while Engaged firms are more likely

to implement CSR in an ongoing continuous

manner, depending on both their own and social

needs. Idealistic firms implement their social actions,

episodically or continuously, by themselves or by

outsourcing or partnership depending on their

immediate preferences and resource constraints.

Impact of CSR involvement on the firm

Does social involvement leave any lasting mark on

the firm itself, and if so, how and why? The nature

of the involvement will determine these effects,

according to configuration patterns.

While the Skeptical firm does not get involved in

social action intentionally, the question is still rele-

vant. Forced social involvement, such as alcoholic

beverage companies which support anti-binge

drinking campaigns is actually calculated to maintain

the company fundamentally as it is and to stave off

any threats to change it. Exxon’s late attention to

climate change is a defensive, self-preservative

reaction. This type of action corresponds to Argyris

169Corporations, Civil Society and Stakeholders

and Schon’s concept of ‘single-loop learning’. Sin-

gle-loop learning entails taking corrective action in a

defensive manner to preserve existing paradigms.

When this action is successful, the organization

learns to repeat the behavior (Argyris and Schon,

1978). Thus, if its social impacts, even unintended,

produce positive consequences for shareholders,

then the Skeptical firm may repeat the particular

behavior insofar as it produces net benefits for itself,

but without any fundamental change in its social

outlook.

Pragmatic companies carry out social actions lar-

gely to enable the company to preserve and enhance

its strategic positioning. Thus, self-change is not part

of the CSR agenda. The instrumentally oriented

relationships and transactional approach with stake-

holders that typify the Pragmatic firm are likely to

induce ‘either–or’ thinking rather than ‘and–and’

thinking (Driver, 2006), as expressed in a win–lose

attitude (Argyris et al., 1985). In the disposition of

single-loop learning, if CSR activity is synergistic

with its own economic success, it may become a

defensive habit, on the supposition that social per-

formance within firms become self-reinforcing

(Waddock and Graves, 1997). For example, there is

some evidence that Coca Cola’s widespread pro-

motion of sport for well-being is becoming a CSR

strand that stands on its own. However, the limited

nature of this change illustrates that generally, a

Pragmatic firm’s discrete, ad hoc reactive social

projects, do not provide the contextual institution-

alized routines (Selznick, 1983) that sustain funda-

mental change in the overall nature of its

configuration.

Engaged firms are most likely of the four con-

figurations to experience internal change from their

social impact activities. In order to reconcile both

economic and normative criteria, the Engaged firm

has to apply thought and imagination. The ‘rela-

tional’ Copernican perspective (Lozano, 2005) im-

plies an ongoing interchange of ideas between the

firm and society. These interactions can provide a

learning medium for the absorption of knowledge

and skills which lead to competence development

and improvement in general business processes.

However, intense meaningful interaction and col-

laboration may result in even more fundamental

change in both the firm and the society where it

enacts its social measures (McEvily and Marcus,

2005). In the Hindustan Lever example mentioned

earlier, Unilever has begun adding managers from

developing country subsidiaries to its board of

directors and top management committees at its own

head office (Hart and Sharma, 2004). Engaged firms

fit into their trading peers’ ecosystems, particularly in

their international locations. The nature of the

change in Engaged firms is made possible by ‘dou-

ble-loop learning’ as espoused by Argyris et al. 1985

and Argyris and Schon, 1978). Double-loop learning

entails reflection on underlying assumptions about

ideas, policies, and goals, before arriving at a solution

to a problem. This reflection is usually carried out

publicly with others in a joint problem-solving

exercise (Argyris, 1990).

Idealistic firms are unlikely to change in the

course of implementing social action, since they

perceive themselves primarily as virtuous change

agents, not as objects for changing. They hold

themselves up as role models to their peers and

might work to help reform them. Paradoxically,

Idealistic companies could be forced to take action in

a less idealistic direction, as they engage with the real

world. They may have to compromise to achieve

their utopian purposes, as they realize that they are

not achievable unless they have the necessary assets

and political influence. Therefore, they will have to

recognize and work with those Phillips (2003) terms

‘derivative’ stakeholders, whose participation is

necessary to achieve the aims of the firm and its

normative stakeholders. The solutions adopted are in

the nature of corrective action, i.e., single-loop

learning. Many Idealistic firms are social entrepre-

neurs. If they want to keep growing and broaden

their domain, then they are likely to encounter

tough competitors and trading partners with whom

they must deal on an instrumental basis. For instance,

pioneer companies adopting a fair trade business

model are increasingly confronted by powerful

mainstream rivals also adopting fair trade products as

part of their strategic approach (Beattie, 2005).

Paradoxically, both Ben and Jerry’s and The Body

Shop were able to ensure their survival only by

being acquired by larger companies, albeit with

guarantees to safeguard their missions and social

values.

In summary, as regards the impact of CSR on the

firm itself, Skeptical, Pragmatic, and Idealistic firms

remain largely unchanged through corrective single-

170 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

loop learning, while Engaged firms may experience

substantial internal changes through double-loop

learning. The propensity for organizations to retain

an illusory autonomous, unified, stable self, as con-

trasted with narratives of an interdependent, dynamic

self, through CSR (Driver, 2006), parallel the con-

trast between the configurations in the framework,

which attempt to maintain themselves as they are and

those that change themselves through social action.

Implications and conclusions

The stakeholder orientation framework offers a

rationale for the variety of instrumental and norma-

tive contingencies that guide CSR characteristics.

While there are no general answers governing all

firms, the variety can be assessed in a systematic way

through configurations. The framework is econom-

ical in distilling a number of variables and contem-

poraneous interdependencies among them. Each

configuration makes sense in its own right in the way

all the pieces operate together in the interior and

exterior facing orientations and conduct of the firm,

including approaches to its place in civil society.

The configurational approach in the framework

advances the development of descriptive stakeholder

theory, where a gap has been identified (Brickson,

2007). It integrates all the components of stakeholder

theory previously identified by Freeman (1994):

normative, instrumental, descriptive, and meta-

phorical. The synthesis of stakeholder and CSR

thinking embodied in the framework also incorpo-

rates previous stakeholder typologies built on single

dimensions (Brickson, 2007; Clarkson, 1991, 1995;

Jones et al., 2007). The historical tension between

economic and civil society activities in corporate life

is addressed, as is the popular justification of CSR by

treating it as instrumental to economic purposes.

Patterns are predicted in the ways that different types

of companies address the tension, embedded in their

adoption of instrumental and/or normative orien-

tations. Different firms may be effective in their own

ways, and prescriptions may be counterproductive.

More is not always better. Higher responsiveness

levels, as advocated by Clarkson (1991, 1995) may

not be desirable in all situations, especially when

attempting to achieve a fair balance among the de-

mands and needs of many stakeholders.

Most CSR proponents present ‘business case

based’ logic as a way of solving the tension between

economic and social goals, by reasoning that

achieving social goals will enhance economic per-

formance (McWilliams et al., 2006; Porter and

Kramer, 2006) and protect the license to operate

(Post, 2002). This is basically instrumental. Among

hundreds of studies attempting to prove the business

case, including meta-analyses, some do show a po-

sitive relationship, but many provide evidence of no

relationship or mixed results, and even a negative

relationship (Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky

et al., 2003; Wu, 2006). This vein of research is

beset with measurement, methodological, and

interpretation problems. Further, dependence on the

business case to justify social involvement begs the

question of what to do when the business case does

not apply. The business case argument accounts only

for CSR that attends to the demands of stakeholders

with influence over the fortunes of the firm. Hence,

matching/mismatching in the stakeholder frame-

work presented in this article explains some of the

inconsistent findings on the link between corporate

social and financial performance. The matching of

firms with CSR choices, based on their skills and

competences, and on preferences with which they

can cope avoids misalignments between actual,

communicated, and conceived identities. (Van de

Ven, 2008). It may be that when social involvement

is at odds with the nature of the firm – its overall

purposes, how it identifies stakeholders, its bases of

action, and its conception of the relationship be-

tween business and society – it ends up having a

detrimental effect on the bottom line. Also, the

presence of other contextual variables that mediate

the relationship suggests that a combination of fac-

tors, such as found in configurations, rather than

simple social performance measures, may determine

outcomes. Brickson (2007) has also suggested that

different organizational identities can yield social

value in their own ways and should best be consis-

tent with their mission and values.

Corporate social responsibility involvement may

have the effect of changing the firm itself incre-

mentally, but large-scale transformation in the

interlocked patterns of configurations is difficult

(Miller and Friesen, 1984). Ecology theory also

implies that inertial pressures and prevailing power

structures often prevent organizations from going

171Corporations, Civil Society and Stakeholders

beyond incremental change, since more would in-

volve a complete realignment of a large number of

the interlocked factors that comprise each configu-

ration (Alvarez Ma Valle, 2002; Hannan and Free-

man, 1989). Therefore, it may be better to think in

terms of matching/avoiding mismatching rather than

converting all firms to the same prescriptive model,

which suggests firms being forced to behave contrary

to their values, interests, and capabilities.

The interrelated features of the Engaged config-

uration suggest that the simultaneous achievement of

social and economic goals is not necessarily anti-

thetical (DiNorcia and Tigner, 2000). The efforts to

remove the tension between them is redirected to-

ward the task of embracing both, to find more

creative outcomes then attempts to justify social

action for instrumental purposes alone have pro-

duced. De Wit and Meyer (2004) urge the accep-

tance of paradox, i.e., the co-existence of two

apparently contradictory truths, as a stimulus toward

a synthesis that stretches thinking, highlighting

critical contrasts and points of agreement, using

ingenuity to get the best of all worlds. Therefore, the

ability to embrace paradox may be a competence

that is developed in the Engaged firm, enabling it to

move toward an authentic self that is complex and

dynamic (Driver, 2006).

Certain CSR actions call for relationships based

on partnering skills and the flexibility to meet

challenges arising within the partnerships themselves

and/or the external environment (Balogun and

Hailey, 2004; Roloff, 2008; Sagawa and Segal, 2000;

Senge et al., 2006). This is exemplified by Unilever,

an Engaged company at the forefront of business

network ecosystems involving myriad partners from

business and civil society. Inherent in building

embedded relationships are business skills which

transfer to social action: networking – to have and be

able to leverage multiple networks; communication

– to communicate consistently and appropriately

through many channels (Foster and Jonker, 2005);

creativity – to be able to see the big picture and

contribute to the visioning process (Balogun and

Hailey, 2004). If the firm does not see eye-to-eye

with its partners about the moral purpose of their

joint social initiatives, then conflicts among the

stakeholders may overwhelm implementation, as the

firm’s representatives do not have the organizational

support to act in good faith, and instead participate

in ‘pretend partnerships’ (Broussine and Miller,

2005). This is not to say that an Engaged firm has

deep trust-based relationships with all stakeholders.

An inherent aspect of its skills is to tailor and nuance

its relations with specific stakeholders rather than to

generic groups, ranking those claims on legitimacy.

It is perfectly in order for the Engaged firm to have

instrumental circumscribed transactional relationship

with some stakeholders, sufficient to the level of

business and obligations formed between them

(Kaler, 2006).

Middle-range theory as applied to the framework

is ideally suited to describe configurations/typolo-

gies. Each configuration makes sense in its own

right in the way all the pieces operate together in

the interior and exterior facing orientations and

conduct of the firm. The framework is parsimoni-

ous but not simplistic in distilling a number of

variables and contingencies. The configurational

approach of the framework also illustrates the

complex dynamics of interpreting CSR behavior,

and shows that a unidimensional approach, such as

the egoism versus other-directed one is incomplete,

also noted by Brickson (2007). The egoism ap-

proach has been designated ‘individually self-inter-

ested to fully other regarding’ (Jones et al., 2007)

and ‘egoist–instrumentalist–moralist’ (Everett et al.,

2008). In effect, these continuums are versions of

the separation hypothesis (Freeman, 1999) of

instrumental versus normative, or selfish versus

unselfish, without recognizing that both can exist

together, intertwined with a number of other

dimensions to create the character and identity of

an organization. The Ideal configuration exempli-

fies a company that belies such a continuum. It is

moral and egoistic at the same time. It caters very

purposefully to legitimate stakeholders, going very

far in extending the definition of such potential

stakeholders. However, at the same time, the Ideal

firm is also very self-regarding, interested in con-

solidating its moral identity and even superiority.

This may be seen as egoistical, even if not in the

traditional homo economicus sense. Brickson

(2005, 2007) has built a typology based on the

dimension of relational identity with stakeholders.

This has been shown to have empirical validity, and

the approach in this article incorporates the rela-

tional identity dimension as part of overall broad

configurations.

172 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

It can be argued that the framework is constructed

within the relatively conservative Anglo-American

model where government is seen to have a lesser role

for social welfare than in the rest of the world. In this

conservative system, business may step in to fill the gap

in social functions. However, Matten and Moon

(2008) show how the recent worldwide adoption of

CSR policies and strategies suggests an ‘American-

ization’ (p. 406) of CSR practices, encompassing

financial, labor, and cultural systems, although the

detail varies in different countries. Thus, CSR prac-

tices and attitudes are becoming more universal,

suggesting that the framework has broad applicability.

Empirical research could complement the con-

ceptual approach provided in the framework, which

offers a systematic way of studying CSR. Fiss (2007)

offers a set-theoretic methodology of studying con-

figurations that helps to go beyond the merely cor-

relational to understand multiple contemporaneous

causal relationships. The set-theoretic -approach

studies inconsistencies rather than controlling for

them. Such an approach, using measures of the basic

stakeholder orientation dimensions and the CSR

ones, as per Tables I and II, in a number of organi-

zations, could uncover the configurational patterns

proposed in the framework. Other related factors,

such as organizations’ core competencies in partner-

ing, could be included. Bennett and Elman (2007)

show how case studies can be used to corroborate

typological theories by ‘process tracing’ (p. 183),

which involves the inductive and deductive study of

events and sequences to establish complex causation.

Indeed, including financial performance in the mix

might address the previous inconsistencies in deter-

mining the presence of a corporate social and financial

performance link, if positive (poor) financial out-

comes are related to a match (mismatch) between

organizational type and the nature of CSR. There is

already suggestive research that Fortune 500 compa-

nies break down into the four configurational types in

the framework, where, of 98 companies, 10 espoused

the pure stockholder view (Skeptical), 22 espoused a

legally and ethically bounded stockholder focus

(Pragmatic), 64 espoused approaches maximizing the

welfare of all stakeholders (Engaged), and two aimed

at solving social problems (Idealistic) (Agle and

Mitchell, 2008). Empirical research could also extend

and develop the framework by discovering additional

dimensions to add to those already proposed, for

example, characteristics of managers, such as princi-

ples and values.

Managers can also relate to the framework intui-

tively, as a working model of reality, since it is

inclusive of everyday strategic concerns and notions

of identity without being esoteric. Practitioners can

avail of the framework as an interesting tool by which

they can examine and measure their firms and the

influences they exert with respect to CSR, integrated

with general strategic reviews. It could thereby help

managers, to create a better match between their

configuration and their CSR activities.

References

Agle, B. R. and R. K. Mitchell: 2008, ‘Introduction:

Recent Research and New Questions’, Business Ethics

Quarterly 18(2), 153–159.

Alvarez Ma Valle, S.: 2002, ‘The Phenomenon of

Organizational Evolution: A Model for Analysis’,

Leadership & Organizational Development Journal 23(4),

215–227.

Argyris, C.: 1990, Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facil-

itating Organizational Design (Allyn & Bacon, Boston).

Argyris, C., R. Putnam and D. McLain Smith: 1985,

Action Science (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Argyris, C. and D. Schon: 1978, Organizational Learning:

A Theory of Action Perspective (Addison-Wesley,

Reading, MA).

Arnstein, S. R.: 1969, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’,

American Institute of Planners Journal 35(July), 216–224.

Balogun, J. and V. H. Hailey: 2004, Exploring Corporate

Change, 2nd Edition (FT Prentice Hall, Harlow, Essex,

UK).

Bartkus, B. R. and M. Glassman: 2008, ‘Do Firms Practice

What They Preach? The Relationship Between Mission

Statements and Stakeholder Management’, Journal of

Business Ethics 83, 207–216.

Beattie, A.: 2005, ‘Coffees with a Conscience’, Financial

Times October 18, 2005, p. 13.

Bennett, A. and C. Elman: 2007, ‘Case Study Methods in

the International Relations Subfield’, Comparative

Political Studies 40(2), 170–195.

Berrone, P., J. Surroca and J. A. Tribo: 2007, ‘Corporate

Ethical Identity as a Determinant of Firm Performance:

A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder Satisfac-

tion’, Journal of Business Ethics 76, 35–53.

Blair, M. M. and L. A. Stout: 1999, ‘Director Account-

ability and the Mediating Role of the Corporate Board’,

Washington University Law Quarterly 79, 403–449.

173Corporations, Civil Society and Stakeholders

Bowie, N. E.: 1999, Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective

(Blackwell, Malden, MA and Oxford).

Brickson, S. L.: 2005, ‘Organizational Identity Orienta-

tion: Forging a Link Between Organizational Identity

and Organizations’ Relations with Stakeholders’,

Administrative Science Quarterly 50(4), 576–609.

Brickson, S. L.: 2007, ‘Organizational Identity Orienta-

tion: The Genesis of the Role of the Firm and Distinct

Forms of Social Value’, Academy of Management Review

32(3), 864–888.

Broussine, M. and C. Miller: 2005, ‘Leadership, Ethical

Dilemmas and ‘Good’ Authority in Public Service

Partnership Working’, Business Ethics: A European Re-

view 14(4), 379–391.

Campbell, A.: 1997, ‘Stakeholders: The Case in Favor’,

Long Range Planning 30, 446–449.

Christensen, C. M. and D. M. Sundahl: 2001, The Process

of Theory-Building, Harvard Business School Working

Paper No. 02-016.

Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1991, ‘Defining, Evaluating, and

Managing Corporate Social Performance: The Stake-

holder Management Model’, in J. E. Post (ed.),

Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol.

12 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 331–358.

Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for

Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Perfor-

mance’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–117.

Crilly, D., S. S. Schneider and M. Zollo: 2008, ‘Psycho-

logical Antecedents to Socially Responsible Behavior’,

European Management Review 5(3), 175–190.

Cumming, J. F., N. Bettridge and P. Toyne: 2005,

‘Responding to Global Business Critical Issues: A

Source of Innovation and Transformation for FTSE

350 Companies’, Corporate Governance – The Interna-

tional Journal of Business in Society 5(3), 42–51.

Davies, A.: 1999, A Strategic Approach to Corporate Gover-

nance (Gower, Aldershot, UK).

De Wit, B. and R. Meyer: 2004, Strategy Process, Content,

Context – An International Perspective (Thomson, London).

Dess, G. G., G. T. Lumpkin and J. G. Covin: 1997,

‘Entrepreneurial Strategy Making and Firm Perfor-

mance: Tests of Contingency and Configurational

Models’, Strategic Management Journal 18, 677–695.

DiNorcia, V. and J. Tigner: 2000, ‘Mixed Motives and

Ethical Decisions in Business’, Journal of Business Ethics

25(1), 1–13.

Donaldson, T.: 1999, ‘Making Stakeholder Theory

Whole’, Academy of Management Review 24, 237–241.

Donaldson, T.: 2008, ‘Two Stories’, Business Ethics

Quarterly 18(2), 172–176.

Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 1999, Ties That Bind:

A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Harvard

Business School Press, Boston).

Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder

Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and

Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20, 65–

91.

Doty, D. H. and W. H. Glick: 1994, ‘Typologies as a

Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved

Understanding and Modeling’, Academy of Management

Review 19(2), 230–251.

Driver, M.: 2006, ‘Beyond the Stalemate of Economics

Versus Ethics: Corporate Social Responsibility and the

Discourse of the Organizational Self’, Journal of Business

Ethics 66, 337–356.

Etzioni, A.: 1998, ‘A Communitarian Note on Stake-

holder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 8(4), 679–

691.

Everett, J. S., D. Neu and D. Martinez: 2008, ‘Multi-

Stakeholder Labour Monitoring Organizations: Ego-

ists, Instrumentalists, or Moralists’, Journal of Business

Ethics 81, 117–142.

Fiss, P. C.: 2007, ‘A Set-Theoretic Approach to Orga-

nizational Configurations’, Academy of Management

Review 32(4), 1180–1198.

Foster, D. and J. Jonker: 2005, ‘Stakeholder Relation-

ships: The Dialogue of Engagement’, Corporate Gov-

ernance – The International Journal of Business in Society

5(5), 51–57.

Freeman, R. E.: 1994, ‘The Politics of Stakeholder

Theory: Some Future Directions’, Business Ethics

Quarterly 4(4), 409–421.

Freeman, R. E.: 1999, ‘Divergent Stakeholder Theory’,

Academy of Management Review 24, 233–236.

Hannan, M. T. and J. Freeman: 1989, Organizational

Ecology (Harvard University Press, Cambridge).

Hart, S. L. and S. Sharma: 2004, ‘Engaging Fringe

Stakeholders for Competitive Imagination’, Academy of

Management Executive 18(1), 7–18.

Hosmer, L. T.: 1998, ‘The Wreck of the Exxon Valdez:

The Need for Imagination, Empathy and Courage’,

Business Ethics Quarterly 8, 109–122.

Hosmer, L. T. and C. Kiewitz: 2005, ‘Organizational

Justice: A Behavioral Science Concept with Critical

Implications for Business Ethics and Stakeholder

Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 15(1), 67–91.

Hsieh, N.: 2004, Transnational Corporations and the Provi-

sion of Assistance, The Prudential Lecture, Rutgers

University, 20 October.

Isdell, N.: 2008, ‘Attacking the Olympics Won’t Help

Darfur’, Financial Times April 18, 2008.

Jamali, D.: 2008, ‘A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate

Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 82,

213–231.

Jones, T., W. Felps and G. A. Bigley: 2007, ‘Ethical

Theory and Stakeholder-Related Decisions: The Role

174 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

of Stakeholder Culture’, Academy of Management Review

32(1), 137–155.

Jones, T. M. and A. C. Wicks: 1999, ‘Convergent

Stakeholder Theory’, Academy of Management Review

24, 206–221.

Kaler, J.: 2002, ‘Morality and Strategy in Stakeholder

Identification’, Journal of Business Ethics 39(1–2), 91–

99.

Kaler, J.: 2003, ‘Differentiating Stakeholder Theories’,

Journal of Business Ethics 46(1), 71–83.

Kaler, J.: 2006, ‘Evaluating Stakeholder Theory’, Journal

of Business Ethics 69, 249–268.

Kay, J.: 1997, ‘The Stakeholder Corporation’, in G.

Kelly, D. Kelly, and A. Gamble (eds.), Stakeholder

Capitalism, Chapter 12 (Macmillan Press Ltd.,

Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK), pp. 125–141.

Kay, J. and A. Silberston: 1995, ‘Corporate Governance’,

National Institute Economic Review 153(August), 84–97.

Letza, S., X. Sun and J. Kirkbride: 2004, ‘Shareholding

Versus Stakeholding: A Critical Review of Corporate

Governance’, Corporate Governance: An International

Review 12(3), 242–262.

Lozano, J. M.: 2005, ‘Towards the Relational Corpora-

tion: From Managing Stakeholder Relationships to

Building Stakeholder Relationships (Waiting for

Copernicus)’, Corporate Governance – The International

Journal of Business in Society 5(2), 60–77.

Maharaj, R.: 2008, ‘Critiquing and Contrasting ‘‘Moral’’

Stakeholder Theory and ‘‘Strategic’’ Stakeholder:

Implications for the Board of Directors’, Corporate

Governance – The International Journal of Business in

Society 8(2), 115–127.

Maitland, A.: 2004, ‘The Value of an Investment in

Human Rights’, Financial Times October 28, 2004, p.

11.

Margolis, J. D. and J. P. Walsh: 2003, ‘Misery Loves

Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’,

Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268–305.

Matten, D. and J. Moon: 2008, ‘‘‘Implicit’’ and ‘‘Ex-

plicit’’ CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Com-

parative Understanding of Corporate Social

Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 33(2),

404–424.

McEvily, B. and A. Marcus: 2005, ‘Embedded Ties and

the Acquisition of Competitive Capabilities’, Strategic

Management Journal 26(11), 1033–1055.

McWilliams, A., D. S. Siegel and P. M. Wright: 2006,

‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implica-

tions’, Journal of Management Studies 43(1), 1–18.

Merton, R. K.: 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure

(The Free Press, New York).

Metcalfe, C. E.: 1998, ‘The Stakeholder Corporation’,

Business Ethics: A European Review 7, 30–36.

Meyer, A. D., A. S. Tsui and C. R. Hinings: 1993,

‘Configurational Approaches to Organizational Anal-

ysis’, Academy of Management Journal 38(6), 1175–1195.

Miller, D.: 1986, ‘Configurations of Strategy and Struc-

ture: Towards a Synthesis’, Strategic Management Journal

7(3), 233–249.

Miller, D. and P. H. Friesen: 1984, Organizations: A

Quantum View (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood: 1997,

‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and

Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What

Really Counts’, Academy of Management Review 22,

853–886.

Moir, L.: 2001, ‘What do we Mean by Corporate Social

Responsibility?’, Corporate Governance – The Interna-

tional Journal of Business in Society 1(2), 16–22.

Nicholls, A. (ed.): 2006, Social Entrepreneurship – New

Models of Sustainable Social Change (Oxford University

Press, Oxford).

O’Higgins, E.: 2003, ‘Global Strategies: Contradictions

and Consequences’, Corporate Governance – The Inter-

national Journal of Business in Society 3(3), 52–66.

Orlitzky, M., F. L. Schmidt and S. L. Rynes: 2003,

‘Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-

Analysis’, Organization Studies 24(3), 403–441.

Phillips, R. A.: 2003, Stakeholder Theory and Organizational

Ethics (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Fran-

cisco).

Pinder, C. C. and L. F. Moore: 1979, ‘The Resurrection

of Taxonomy to Aid the Development of Middle

Range Theories of Organizational Behavior’, Admin-

istrative Science Quarterly 24(1), 99–118.

Porter, M. E.: 1998, Competitive Advantage (The Free

Press, New York).

Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2006, ‘Strategy and

Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage

and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business

Review 85(12), 78–92.

Post, J. E.: 2002, ‘The ‘‘Iron Law’’ of Business Responsi-

bility Revisited: Lessons from South Africa (S. Prakash

Sethi and Oliver Williams, Economic Imperatives and

Ethical Values in Global Business: The South African

Experience and International Codes Today)’, Business

Ethics Quarterly 12(2), 265–276.

Prahalad, C. K.: 2004, The Fortune at the Bottom of the

Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton

School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJ).

Pruzan, P.: 2001, ‘The Question of Organizational Con-

sciousness: Can Organizations Have Values, Virtues and

Visions?’, Journal of Business Ethics 29, 271–284.

Reed, D.: 2002, ‘Employing Normative Stakeholder

Theory in Developing Countries: A Critical Theory

Perspective’, Business and Society 41(2), 166–207.

175Corporations, Civil Society and Stakeholders

Roddick, A.: 2005, Business as Unusual: The Triumph of

Anita Roddick and the Body Shop (Harper Thorsons,

London).

Roloff, J.: 2008, ‘Learning from Multi-Stakeholder

Networks: Issue Focused Stakeholder Management’,

Journal of Business Ethics 82, 233–250.

Sagawa, S. and E. Segal: 2000, Common Interest, Common

Good (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).

Schneper, W. D. and M. F. Guillen: 2004, ‘Stakeholder

Rights and Corporate Governance: A Cross-National

Study of Hostile Takeovers’, Administrative Science

Quarterly 49, 263–295.

Selznick, P.: 1983, Leadership in Administration (University

of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles).

Senge, P. M., M. Dow and G. Neath: 2006, ‘Learning

Together: New Partnerships for New Times’, Corpo-

rate Governance – The International Journal of Business in

Society 6(4), 420–430.

Steger, U., A. Ionescu-Somers and O. Salzmann: 2007,

‘The Economic Foundations of Corporate Sustain-

ability’, Corporate Governance – The International Journal

of Business in Society 7(2), 162–177.

Stoney, C. and D. Winstanley: 2001, ‘Stakeholding:

Confusion or Utopia: Mapping the Conceptual Ter-

rain’, Journal of Management Studies 38, 603–626.

Thomson, I. and J. Bebbington: 2005, ‘Social and Envi-

ronmental Reporting in the UK: A Pedagogic Eval-

uation’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16, 507–533.

UNDP: 2004, Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business

Work for the Poor (Commission on the Private Sector &

Development Report to the Secretary-General of the

United Nations, New York).

Van de Ven, B.: 2008, ‘An Ethical Framework for the

Marketing of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal

of Business Ethics 82, 339–352.

Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, ‘The Corporate

Social Performance – Financial Performance Link’,

Strategic Management Journal 18, 303–319.

Wilkes, V. D.: 2005, ‘Dealing with a Global Issue:

Contributing to Poverty Alleviation’, Corporate Gov-

ernance – The International Journal of Business in Society

5(3), 61–69.

Wu, M.-L.: 2006, ‘Corporate Social Performance, Cor-

porate Financial Performance and Firm Size: A Meta-

Analysis’, The Journal of American Academy of Business,

Cambridge 8(1), 163–171.

Zaheer, A. and G. G. Bell: 2005, ‘Benefiting from Net-

work Position: Firm Capabilities, Structural Holes, and

Performance’, Strategic Management Journal 26(9), 809–

825.

Zenisek, T. J.: 1979, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A

Conceptualization Based on Organizational Litera-

ture’, Academy of Management Review 4(3), 359–368.

University College Dublin,

Dublin, Ireland

E-mail: [email protected]

176 Eleanor R.E. O’Higgins

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated v2 300% \050ECI\051) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts false /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 149 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 150 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 149 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 599 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description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> /CHS <FEFF4f7f75288fd94e9b8bbe5b9a521b5efa7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065876863900275284e8e9ad88d2891cf76845370524d53705237300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c676562535f00521b5efa768400200050004400460020658768633002> /CHT <FEFF4f7f752890194e9b8a2d7f6e5efa7acb7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065874ef69069752865bc9ad854c18cea76845370524d5370523786557406300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c4f86958b555f5df25efa7acb76840020005000440046002065874ef63002> /CZE <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> /DAN <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> /ESP <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> /ETI <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> /FRA <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> /GRE <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a stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN <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> /ITA <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> /JPN <FEFF9ad854c18cea306a30d730ea30d730ec30b951fa529b7528002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020658766f8306e4f5c6210306b4f7f75283057307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103055308c305f0020005000440046002030d530a130a430eb306f3001004100630072006f0062006100740020304a30883073002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d3067958b304f30533068304c3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a306b306f30d530a930f330c8306e57cb30818fbc307f304c5fc59808306730593002> /KOR <FEFFc7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c5ec0020ace0d488c9c80020c2dcd5d80020c778c1c4c5d00020ac00c7a50020c801d569d55c002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020bb38c11cb97c0020c791c131d569b2c8b2e4002e0020c774b807ac8c0020c791c131b41c00200050004400460020bb38c11cb2940020004100630072006f0062006100740020bc0f002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020c774c0c1c5d0c11c0020c5f40020c2180020c788c2b5b2c8b2e4002e> /LTH <FEFF004e006100750064006f006b0069007400650020016100690075006f007300200070006100720061006d006500740072007500730020006e006f0072011700640061006d00690020006b0075007200740069002000410064006f00620065002000500044004600200064006f006b0075006d0065006e007400750073002c0020006b00750072006900650020006c0061006200690061007500730069006100690020007000720069007400610069006b007900740069002000610075006b01610074006f00730020006b006f006b007900620117007300200070006100720065006e006700740069006e00690061006d00200073007000610075007300640069006e0069006d00750069002e0020002000530075006b0075007200740069002000500044004600200064006f006b0075006d0065006e007400610069002000670061006c006900200062016b007400690020006100740069006400610072006f006d00690020004100630072006f006200610074002000690072002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e0030002000610072002000760117006c00650073006e0117006d00690073002000760065007200730069006a006f006d00690073002e> /LVI <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> /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR <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> /POL <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> /PTB <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> /RUM <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> /RUS <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> /SKY <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> /SLV <FEFF005400650020006e006100730074006100760069007400760065002000750070006f0072006100620069007400650020007a00610020007500730074007600610072006a0061006e006a006500200064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074006f0076002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002c0020006b006900200073006f0020006e0061006a007000720069006d00650072006e0065006a016100690020007a00610020006b0061006b006f0076006f00730074006e006f0020007400690073006b0061006e006a00650020007300200070007200690070007200610076006f0020006e00610020007400690073006b002e00200020005500730074007600610072006a0065006e006500200064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074006500200050004400460020006a00650020006d006f0067006f010d00650020006f0064007000720065007400690020007a0020004100630072006f00620061007400200069006e002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000200069006e0020006e006f00760065006a01610069006d002e> /SUO <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> /SVE <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> /TUR <FEFF005900fc006b00730065006b0020006b0061006c006900740065006c0069002000f6006e002000790061007a006401310072006d00610020006200610073006b013100730131006e006100200065006e0020006900790069002000750079006100620069006c006500630065006b002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002000620065006c00670065006c0065007200690020006f006c0075015f007400750072006d0061006b0020006900e70069006e00200062007500200061007900610072006c0061007201310020006b0075006c006c0061006e0131006e002e00200020004f006c0075015f0074007500720075006c0061006e0020005000440046002000620065006c00670065006c0065007200690020004100630072006f006200610074002000760065002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000200076006500200073006f006e0072006100730131006e00640061006b00690020007300fc007200fc006d006c00650072006c00650020006100e70131006c006100620069006c00690072002e> /UKR <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> /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) /DEU <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> >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [595.276 841.890] >> setpagedevice