Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:29:49.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unfortunately, Ambiguities Still Abound in How We Conceptualize Corporate Social Responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Paresh Mishra  and
Gordon B. Schmidt
Paresh Mishra*
Affiliation:
Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne
Gordon B. Schmidt
Affiliation:
Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: IPFW, OLS Neff 288C, 2101 ColiseumBlvd., Fort Wayne, IN 46805
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The idea of embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility (CSR) proposed by Aguinis and Glavas (2013) appears to be very intuitive and functional. After all, who can on face deny the argument that CSR will have the maximum positive outcomes when it is not just an add-on but is thoroughly integrated into the strategies, routines, and operations of the business? However, on closer inspection, there appear to be several problems with the embedded–peripheral dichotomy. Three major ambiguities of the embedded–peripheral dichotomy are focused on in this commentary. The first lies in the potential for significant ambiguity in whether a company falls in one category or the other based on how the totality of the organization's operations and functions are categorized. A company can have CSR built into their operations and strategies for part of their business (embedded) while have them not be built into their operations for different aspects of the operations or product strategies. The second ambiguity area is how CSR actions get defined as peripheral or embedded that does fit well with the actual importance level of the action to the organization. We look at an organization example (TOM Shoes) where peripheral CSR actions have significant impact on organizational success.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 379 - 383
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. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Eabrasu, M. (2012). A moral pluralist perspective on corporate social responsibility: From good to controversial practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 429–439.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
Petco. (2012). Petco foundation. Retrieved from http://www.petco.com/petco_Page_PC_petcofoundationhome.aspxGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. (1999). Reclaiming America: Nike, clean air, and the new national activism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, A. (2011, March 3). Jack Welch: GE may be going too green. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2011/03/01/jack-welch-ge-may-be-going-too-green/Google Scholar
Sigurthorsson, D. (2012). The Icelandic banking crisis: A reason to rethink CSR? Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 147–156.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A., Fernandez, S., & Sawayda, J. (2011). TOMS: One for one movement. Daniels Fund Ethics Initiative at the University of New Mexico. Retrieved from http://danielsethics.mgt.unm.edu/pdf/TOMS%20Case.pdfGoogle Scholar
TOMS.com. (2013). TOMS giving report. Retrieved from http://www.toms.com/media/docs/2869/TOMS_Giving-Report_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar