Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T09:18:26.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring Australian financial leaders' views of corporate social responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Margaret Lindorff  and
James Peck
Margaret Lindorff
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne VIC, Australia
James Peck
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne VIC, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports an exploratory and qualitative study of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) beliefs of leaders of large Australian financial institutions. The findings are presented in four sections. The first discusses whether leaders have a mental model of the firm that is most closely aligned with the traditional shareholder or the stakeholder view of the firm. It then examines how they frame the organization's responsibilities, particularly as they relate to balancing the needs of shareholders and other stakeholders. The third section identifies how they view CSR and the fulfilment of potential economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities of organizations. The final section examines the driving factors that lead to their promotion of corporate social responsibility. We find that although many leaders support the wealth creation model's central premise that the organization's primary responsibility is to maximise its value in order to meet its fiduciary obligations to its shareholders, they also believe that CSR activities benefit the organization financially and in building corporate sustainability, employee engagement and performance, and social capital. CSR activities are also believed to increase the legitimacy of the organization, although philanthropy is not supported unless there is a business case. This has implications for those seeking support from organizations for community causes. We also find the view of employees as primary stakeholders is strong and widespread; an implication of this is that employee influence is a strong lever for positive change towards CSR behaviour in a firm.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibilitystakeholder theoryshareholder theoryAustralia
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 48 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2010

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

Adler, P and Kwon, S (2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept, Academy of Management Review 27: 17–40.Google Scholar
Aguilera, RV, Rupp, DE, Williams, CA and Ganapathi, J (2007) Putting the S back into Corporate Social Responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations, Academy of Management Review 32: 836–863.Google Scholar
Amalric, F and Hauser, J (2005). Economic drivers of corporate responsibility activities, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 20: 27–38.Google Scholar
Aristotle, (1982) The Nicomachean Ethics (translated by Rackman, H.), Harvard University Press, London.Google Scholar
Australian Government (2001) The Corporation's Act, accessed at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/06B599E3181C33FCCA2570C20001B061/$file/Corps2001Vol4WD02.pdf on 19 September 2008.Google Scholar
Batten, JA and Birch, D (2005). Defining corporate citizenship: Evidence from Australia, Asia Pacific Business Review 11: 293–308.Google Scholar
Bosch, H (1995) The director at risk: Accountability in the boardroom. Pitman, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Burton, BK and Goldsby, M (2005) The Golden Rule and business ethics: An examination, Journal of Business Ethics 56: 371–383.Google Scholar
Business Council of Australia (2005) Submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, accessed at http://www.bca.com.au/Content/97547.aspx on 16 September 2008.Google Scholar
Carr, AZ (1996) Is business bluffing ethical? in Rae, SB and Wong, KL (Eds.) Beyond integrity: A Judeo-Christian approach, pp 55–62, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.Google Scholar
Carroll, AB (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, Academy of Management Review 4: 497–505.10.5465/amr.1979.4498296Google Scholar
Carroll, AB (1998) The four faces of corporate citizenship, Business and Society Review 100: 1–7.Google Scholar
Cavanagh, GF, Moberg, DJ and Velasquez, M (1981) The ethics of organizational politics, Academy of Management Review 6: 363–374.Google Scholar
Clarkson, MBE (1995) A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance, Academy of Management Review 20: 92–117.Google Scholar
Drucker, PF (1954) The practice of management, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2005) The importance of corporate responsibility, accessed at http://www.oracle.com/events/evites/bai/eiu-oraclecrfinal1.pdf on 16 September 2008.Google Scholar
Fisher, J (2004) Social responsibility and ethics: Clarifying the concepts, Journal of Business Ethics 52: 391–400.Google Scholar
Freeman, RE (1984) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Pittman, Boston MA.Google Scholar
Freeman, RE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory, Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 409–421.Google Scholar
Freeman, RE (2008) Ending the so-called ‘Friedman-Freeman’ debate, Business Ethics Quarterly 18: 162–166.Google Scholar
Freeman, RE (2009) Managing for stakeholders. In Beauchamp, TL, Bowie, NE, and Arnold, N (Eds), Ethical theory and business, pp. 56–68, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ.Google Scholar
Freeman, RE, Wicks, AC and Parmer, B (2004) Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited, Organization Science 15: 364–369.Google Scholar
Friedman, M (1962) Capitalism and freedom, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Friedman, M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, New York Times 09 13: 122–126.Google Scholar
Garriga, E and Mele, D (2004) Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory, Journal of Business Ethics 53: 51–71.Google Scholar
Goodpaster, KE (1991) Business ethics and stakeholder analysis, Business Ethics Quarterly 1: 53–73.10.2307/3857592Google Scholar
Grace, D and Cohen, S (2005) Business ethics: Problems and cases, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.Google Scholar
Haigh, M and Jones, MT (2006) The drivers of corporate social responsibility: A critical review, Cambridge Business Review 5: 245–252.Google Scholar
Hart, S and Milstein, M (2003) Creating sustainable value, Academy of Management Executive 17 (2): 56–69.Google Scholar
Maak, T and Pless, NM (2006) Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society – A relational perspective, Journal of Business Ethics 66: 99–115.Google Scholar
Margolis, JD and Walsh, JP (2003) Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business, Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 268–305.Google Scholar
Mellor, R, Hettihewa, S and Batten, JA (2006) The relationship between firm management and the ethical practices of the firm, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 22: 27–37.Google Scholar
Minkes, AL, Small, MW and Chatterjee, SR (1999) Leadership and business ethics: Does it matter? Implications for management, Journal of Business 20: 327–335.Google Scholar
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (2006) Corporate responsibility: Managing risk and creating value. Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra.Google Scholar
Post, JE, Preston, LE and Sachs, S (2002) Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view, California Management Review 45: 5–28.Google Scholar
Randall, DM and Fernandes, MF (1991) The social desirability response bias in ethics research, Journal of Business Ethics 10: 805–817.Google Scholar
Rawls, J (1971) A theory of justice, Belknap, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Rollison, D (2002) Organizational behaviour: An integrated approach, Pearson Education, Harlow UK.Google Scholar
Sampford, C, Lewis, M and Berry, V (2005) Inquiry into corporate responsibility and triple-bottom-line reporting. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Griffith University, Queensland.Google Scholar
Schuman, MC (1985) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches, Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610.Google Scholar
Schwartz, MS and Carroll, AB (2005) Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach, Business Ethics Quarterly 13: 503–530.10.5840/beq200313435Google Scholar
Sen, A (1990) Ethics and economics, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S (1999) Firms find long-term rewards in doing good, in Richardson, JE (Ed), Business ethics, pp 198–199, McGraw-Hill, Guilford CT.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, L (2006) Corporate social responsibility: Views from the frontline, Journal of Business Ethics 63: 279–296.Google Scholar
Wood, DJ (1990) Business and society, HarperCollins, Glenview IL.Google Scholar
Wood, DJ (1991) Corporate social performance revisited, Academy of Management Review 16: 691–718.Google Scholar
Wood, DJ. and Jones, RE (1995) Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance, International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3: 229–267.Google Scholar
Worthington, I, Ram, M and Jones, T (2006) Exploring corporate social responsibility in the U.K. small business community, Journal of Business Ethics 67: 201–217.Google Scholar