Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:51:47.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological Foundations of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Importance of “Avoiding Bad”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Sven-Oliver Spiess ,
Karsten Mueller  and
Nick Lin-Hi
Sven-Oliver Spiess*
Affiliation:
University of Osnabrück
Karsten Mueller
Affiliation:
University of Osnabrück
Nick Lin-Hi
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department for Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Osnabrück, Seminarstraße 20, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their focal article, Aguinis and Glavas (2013) emphasize that despite a growing body of research, the conditions facilitating positive effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) remain unclear. In regard to this issue, empirical studies have thus far produced inconsistent and equivocal results (for an overview, see Margolis & Walsh, 2003). Aguinis and Glavas introduce the difference between embedded and peripheral CSR as a key differentiation to explain why and when CSR is more likely to lead to positive outcomes. Specifically, they argue that CSR is more likely to lead to positive outcomes if it is embedded and consequently related to an organization's core competencies and integrated within a firm's strategy, routines, and operations. The idea of embedded CSR being more likely to lead to positive outcomes is compatible with, for instance, the notion of “shared value” (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 383 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(4), 314–332.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. (2011). The relationship between corporate governance, global governance, and sustainable profits: Lessons learned from BP. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 11(5), 571–584.Google Scholar
Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. (2012). The link between self- and societal interest. European Management Review, 9(1), 19–30.Google Scholar
Lin-Hi, N., & Müller, K. (2013). The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1928–1936.Google Scholar
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives by business? Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minor, D., & Morgan, J. (2011). CSR as reputation insurance: Primum non nocere. California Management Review, 53(3), 40–59.Google Scholar
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1), 62–77.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.Google Scholar
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar