Discussion: View Thread

Corporate Responsibility
Initiatives and Mechanisms
Guest Editors:
Jennifer J. Griffin
The George Washington University
Aseem Prakash
University of Washington, Seattle

This special issue of Business & Society seeks to
examine the following question: How do
institutions and actors internal to the firm as
well as external to the firm (at the sector,
national, regional, and global levels) influence
choices regarding corporate responsibility (CR)
mechanisms and CR initiatives? We invite papers
from all social science disciplines (business,
economics, political science, sociology, and
public policy) that explore these issues in the
national, regional, comparative, or global
contexts. We welcome all methodological approaches.

CR has emerged as an important source of
innovation as well as a constraint on modern
competitiveness. Deemed by some an altruistic
giveaway beyond the economic interests of the
firm (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001) CR is also
considered a tangible investment toward
“operating in tune with the way the world works”
(Gates, 2008)—effective management reflecting
investment commitments to what the organization
values (Carroll, 1999; Graves & Waddock, 1994; Griffin, 2008).

CR, at a minimum, can be viewed as a cluster of a
firm’s policies, programs, and outcomes that are
beyond the requirements of extant law. These CR
initiatives may include paying wages beyond the
legal minimum, healthcare benefits if not
provided by the state, retirement funds,
philanthropic donations, community investments,
pollution abatement technologies as well as
products and services that surpass regulatory
requirements. In different sectors, contexts, and
geographies the bundle of initiatives and
beneficiaries of a firm’s CR initiatives differs.

Arguably, only those beyond-compliance policies
that explicitly seek to serve a broader social
purpose should be classified as CR. A
multinational corporation might find it
economical to replicate the same technology
across facilities, although the baseline legal
standards may differ across jurisdictions. Hence,
a technology barely meeting legal requirements in
one jurisdiction might be considered beyond
compliance elsewhere. Would this be classified as
CR, although the intent of the corporation was to
attain economies of scale in facility management?
While it is important to know the actual (as
opposed to declared) motivations behind an
action, empirically, this is very difficult.
Hence, we treat all beyond-compliance actions,
irrespective of their motivations, as CR.

If one views CR initiatives as expressions of
corporate strategy, identity, power, or
dependency on specific actors and institutions,
the managerial challenge becomes understanding
why and how a corporation seeks to pursue CR.
Organizations can choose from a menu of CR
initiatives that focus on different issue areas
or differentially benefit stakeholder groups.
Given that resources devoted to CR are finite,
how does a corporation decide which ones to
pursue? These initiatives might be directed at
internal actors, external stakeholders residing
in the community where the corporation has a
facility, investors, governments, consumers,
suppliers, or citizens that are not directly
impacted by the firm’s value creation processes.

For analytical simplicity we classify various CR
initiatives in the following categories.

CR Initiatives

Functional
Human resources. These initiatives are directed
toward raising the economic, social, and
political opportunities for employees, contract
workers, and potential employees in the
workplace. They could seek to enhance employee
voice, improve employee benefits, wages, working
conditions, and so on. They could focus on a
specific subset of employees or specific issues
such as women representation, diversity, stigma,
and ethnic or linguistic capabilities. Often
directed toward internal stakeholders,
workplace/labor CR initiatives often appeal to
pools of potential employees and broader actors
via the media affecting corporate reputation.
Marketing. A key activity here is encompassing
new product features, for example, the
introduction of seat belts by Volvo or the
introduction of hybrid cars by Toyota.
Consumer-oriented CR encompasses product and
process innovations (e.g., less carbon, water,
energy content) as well as promotion,
advertising, and distribution strategies. Green
marketing, passthrough philanthropy for
consumers, improved product functionality (e.g.,
miniaturization), and new products (carbon
offsets, etc.) are often the earliest evidence of consumer-oriented CR.
Supply chain. These initiatives are directed at
securing the acquisition or accumulation of
needed inputs. Needed inputs include access to
capital, raw materials, and technology. Supply
chain CR initiatives may focus on monitoring and
enforcing codes of conduct; carbon, water, or
energy footprints from the extended enterprise;
and developing supplier innovations or securing
sustainable supplies (e.g., minimizing packaging,
reforestation). This includes securing permits to
operate (e.g., mine site licenses, fishing
permits), socially responsible funding, human
rights/labor/workplace issues within the supply
chain or access to nonrenewable resources.

Cross-Functional/Corporate
Development. These initiatives are directed at
building social capital, creating infrastructure
and capabilities in communities to build
commerce, stabilize households, and improve
public health, education, or general welfare.
These may be directed at the local community or
at the underprivileged sections of the society
that may not be directly affected by the
corporation. The objectives are threefold: first,
to enhance the human capital; second, to improve
the physical infrastructure for the
underprivileged to leverage their human capital;
and third, to enhance the social capital of a
given community. Initiatives can range from
providing tangible, bricks, and mortar resources
for community events such as hospitals and
schools to a transferring of skills and expertise
(e.g., fundraising, project coordination, access
to capital, grant writing) for enhancing community infrastructure.
Environment. These initiatives seek to generate
positive environmental externalities or reduce
the production of negative environmental
externalities associated with producing the
organization’s goods and services. These
activities can be directed at specific actors
(e.g., community groups impacted by contaminated
water streams) or institutions (e.g., investors, regulators).
Corporate governance. These initiatives seek to
improve corporate governance and voluntarily
create new rules regulating the generation and/or
the disbursement of the residual or profit. These
activities could seek to provide for investor
protection, new financial disclosure
requirements, limits of executive compensation, and so on.

CR Mechanisms
CR initiatives can be pursued via a variety of
mechanisms. Once decided what to do, how does the
corporation decide how to do? How does it match
initiatives with mechanisms? We identify four types of mechanisms.
Unilateral Acts
Corporations donate resources (cash, materials,
employee time, etc.) to various CR initiatives.
Some of these unilateral acts might be episodic
whereas others might be regular investments by a
corporation. A corporation may sponsor periodic
community activities such as an annual parade,
fireworks, or an employee volunteerism day.
Alternatively, unilateral corporate investments
might be directed to improving product quality,
process enhancements (e.g., less carbon, water),
reporting and verifying CR initiatives, or
securing ethical suppliers in a timely manner.
Actors and institutions may be located in
far-flung locales, especially when the
corporation is seeking to respond to an episodic
event such as a natural calamity.
Foundations
These are sponsored by the corporation,
individuals, or governmental agencies. The
objective is to create a long-term institutional
system to support developmental, environmental,
public health, or other activities in the local
community or in developing countries. Though
these are also unilateral acts of giving, by
establishing a foundation, the corporation
institutionalizes its commitment to pursuing CR
policies and physically locates its CR
initiatives outside the corporation. Furthermore,
these foundations tend to be managed by
professionals who are typically recruited from
the nonprofit community. The Ford Foundation and
the Gates Foundation are two prominent examples of this genre of CR mechanisms.
Partnerships
Corporations (as opposed to their foundations)
can enter into partnerships with governments
and/or NGOs, which includes different types of
relationships, including bilateral or trilateral
compacts. These tend to be contractually based
relationships focused on achieving a specific
objective (e.g., access to capital, roads built,
numbers of people trained) enabling actors,
institutions, and the organization to team up and
coordinate skills and expertise in specific
areas. The objectives can range from
strengthening local communities as well as
furthering economic development abroad. For
example, a corporation may team up with local
agriculture cooperatives and local governments to
provide fertilizers, set priced seeds, and
education on sustainable farming while
guaranteeing a specific price for if quantity and quality demands are met.
Voluntary Programs
These pertain to collective, rule-based endeavors
that a group of corporations agree to join
(Prakash & Potoski, 2006). These systems can be
established or managed by an industry association
(Responsible Care, Fair Trade, the Equator
Principles, and the Extractive Industry
Transparency Initiative), NGOs (Forest
Stewardship Council), or even governments (Energy
Star). Voluntary programs typically seek to
encourage corporations to adopt beyond-compliance
policies that lead to production of positive
externalities or the reduction of the negative
externalities associated with its production,
distribution, or marketing processes. As opposed
to supporting philanthropic and charitable
objectives, these programs tend to be established
with regulatory requirements as the baseline. The
specific types of CR initiatives and the
mechanism by which they are pursued tend to vary
across countries (in a given sector) or across
sectors within a given country. We suggest that
the “demand for” as well as the “supply” of CR is
significantly conditioned by the institutional and stakeholder
environment in which firms operate. As
institutional theory, resource dependence theory,
and the variety of capitalism literatures
suggest, regulatory and governance styles are
influenced by the institutional and sectors
contexts in which firms operate. Some questions
papers might explore are as follows:
• How do the variations in the institutional
context affect the ways business pursues CR?
• If different institutions, actors, and
stakeholder sets favor or disfavor specific types
of CRs, how do corporations balance competing demands?
• How do business–government and business–NGO
relations influence the demands for CR and,
consequently, shape the emergence and design of CR?
• Why do firms favor unilateral supply of CR as
opposed to joining collective CR codes?
• Do the firm’s institutional and stakeholder
contexts encourage it to invest in specific areas
such as environmental issues or community outreach, but not others?
• How does the organizational structure influence
the choices of CR mechanisms and initiatives?
• Under what conditions do preferences of key
managers bear upon the decisions regarding CR initiatives and mechanisms?
• How do multinational corporations handle the
pressures from globalization and localization
regarding CR initiatives and mechanisms? Under
what conditions and in what ways does the parent
company grant substantial autonomy to its subsidiaries in this regard?

Submission Instructions
The format of the papers must follow Business &
Society contribution guidelines. Business &
Society uses the American Psychological
Association citation and reference system (please
see any recent copy of the journal for a sample;
visit http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdManSub.nav?prodId=Journal200878).
Papers should include a 100- to 150-word abstract
followed by 3 to 5 keywords. The paper itself
should contain no indications of authorship. A
title page containing full author contact
information should be sent as a separate document to the coeditors.

Tentative Dates and Timetable
Target Dates - Target Activities
June 1, 2010 - Paper to be submitted electronically to the following coeditors:
Jennifer J. Griffin (e-mail: jgriffin@gwu.edu)
Aseem Prakash (e-mail: aseem@u.washington.edu)
September 1, 2010 - Authors invited to revise and resubmit papers.
November 30, 2010 - Revised papers are due.
April 30, 2011 - Delivery of full set of papers
and guest editors’ introductory paper

References
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social
responsibility: Evolution of a definitional
construct, Business & Society, 38, 268-295.
Gates, B. (2008, January 24). Remarks by Bill
Gates, chairman, Microsoft Corporation, Davos
World Economic Forum 2008. A New Approach to
Capitalism in the 21st Century, Davos,
Switzerland. Available from
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/exec/billg/speeches/2008/01-24WEFDavos.mspx.
Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994).
Institutional owners and corporate social
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034-1046.
Griffin, J. J. (2008). Re-examining corporate
community investment: Allen’s Australian Centre
for Corporate Public Affairs (ACCPA) Corporate
Community Involvement Report. International
Journal of Public Affairs, 8, 219-227.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate
social responsibility: A theory of the firm
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.
Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2006). The voluntary
environmentalists: Green Clubs, ISO 14001, and
voluntary environmental regulations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.