Content uploaded by Wenlong Yuan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wenlong Yuan
Content may be subject to copyright.
Integrating CSR Initiatives in Business: An Organizing
Framework
Wenlong Yuan*. Yongjian Bao** and Alain Verbeke***
*Assistant Professor of Strategy and International Business
Faculty of Management
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4
Phone: (403) 380-1845
Fax: (403) 329-2038
E-mail: Wenlong.yuan@uleth.ca
**Assistant Professor of Strategy
Calgary campus, Faculty of Management
University of Lethbridge
Email: yj.bao@uleth.ca
Phone: (403) 284-8845
***Alain Verbeke
Professor of International Business Strategy
McCaig Chair in Management
Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Tel: (403) 220-8803
Fax: (403) 282-0095
E-mail: averbeke@ucalgary.ca
And
University of Brussels (VUB)
Solvay Business School
Pleinlaan 2
1050 Brussels, Belgium
Published in the Journal of Business Ethics, June 2011, Volume 101,
Issue 1, pp. 75-92
The final publication is available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-010-0710-z
1
Running head: Integrating CSR initiatives in business
Integrating CSR Initiatives in Business: An Organizing
Framework
Abstract
Integrating CSR initiatives in business is one of the great challenges facing firms today. Societal
stakeholders require much more from the firm than pursuing profitability and growth. But these
societal stakeholders often simply assume that increased societal expectations can easily be
accommodated within efficiently run business operations, without much attention devoted to
process issues. We build upon the core-periphery thesis to explore potential avenues for firms to
add recurring CSR initiatives to their existing business practices. Based on Siggelkow’s (2002)
analysis of organizational change, we conceptualize seven major patterns of CSR initiative
adoption. We develop a new organizing framework showing how a firm can integrate CSR
initiatives in business. Within the new framework, each of the seven patterns represents an
idiosyncratic path through which recurring CSR initiatives can be included as practices into
conventional operations. We also explore the nature of the resulting internal fit between
recurring CSR initiatives and business practices.
2
Integrating CSR Initiatives in Business: An Organizing
Framework
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives are discrete undertakings, intended to
improve societal welfare and being supported by corporate resources (e.g., money, labor)
(Bhattacharya et al., 2009, p. 260). Of specific interest in the present article are initiatives that
represent recurring undertakings rather than one-off actions. Most Fortune 500 firms have
engaged in some form of recurring CSR undertakings, though even in these large companies “the
majority of corporate contribution programs are diffuse and unfocused” (Porter and Kramer,
2002, p. 58). Porter and Kramer (2006, p.80) observed that “the prevailing approaches to CSR
are so fragmented and so disconnected from business and strategy as to obscure many of the
greatest opportunities for companies to benefit society”. They added that “the more closely tied a
social issue is to a company’s business, the greater the opportunity to leverage the firm’s
resources – and benefit society” (Porter and Kramer, 2006, p. 88). The implication is that
companies should apply their distinctive strengths valid in their particular competitive context to
select specific CSR initiatives, especially those that represent recurrent undertakings, thereby
reaping the full benefits thereof (e.g., in the realm of corporate philanthropy).
The "business case" argument for CSR, namely the leveraging of recurring CSR
undertakings to gain direct financial benefits and to improve long run firm-level competitiveness
in terms of profitability and growth, has often been made to justify such undertakings as a wise
investment (Margolis and Walsh, 2003). Here, establishing an explicit link between recurring
CSR undertakings and the firm’s prevailing business practices would appear to make sense,
much in line with the more conventional arguments in favor of related as opposed to unrelated
diversification. However, many firms still view CSR as being divorced from prevailing business
3
operations and have not even attempted to “routinize” their recurring CSR undertakings. To
routinize recurring CSR initiatives means developing these as “practices”, i.e., stable patterns of
decision-making and action intended (a) to improve every new CSR initiative’s internal
coherence with other CSR practices, as well as internal and external consistency, respectively
with prevailing business routines and external stakeholder demands, and (b) to maximize the
resulting contribution to business performance, in terms of profitability and growth, of the
initiative over time (see also Jamali et al., 2009).
From a managerial perspective, adopting new, recurring CSR initiatives can be complex
and risky, not only because managers have to decide whether or not to respond to a variety of
internal and external stakeholder pressures, but also because they have to evaluate whether
recurring CSR initiatives will actually fit with currently prevailing practices. As the effectiveness
of CSR initiative implementation in the form of a new practice often depends on linkages with
other routines in the organization, an appropriate response to CSR challenges may require close
coordination across relevant functions (Westley and Vredenburg, 1996). Inadequate cross-
functional coordination and organizational barriers (Cordano and Frieze, 2000) can lead to
internal conflicts and ultimately weak performance towards achieving societal and corporate
goals. Thus, senior managers need to assess to what extent adopting new, recurring CSR
initiatives as practices might disturb current routines, whereby any incoherence or inconsistency
should be acceptably low and controllable. At minimum, the positive contribution to long-run
business performance should outweigh the additional costs resulting from any disturbance to
current business practices.
Inherent in the above discussion is the notion of “fit” of CSR practices in terms of
expected internal coherence, consistency with prevailing business routines and resulting
4
contribution to business performance, thereby focusing less on external consistency with
stakeholder demands that is discussed extensively elsewhere (see Atkinson et al., 1997). The
“fit” notion features prominently in the extant CSR literature. For example, Basu and Palazzo
(2008, p. 129) distinguish: "the consistency between an organization's overall strategy and its
CSR activities, and [the coherence] within the varieties of CSR activities contemplated during
any given period of time". The above levels of internal fit, when combined with the external fit
between CSR initiatives and societal stakeholder demands for particular CSR activities, will
ultimately determine the credibility and effectiveness of CSR initiative outcomes, see Figure 1.
In the present article, we focus primarily on the middle section of Figure 1, namely the internal
consistency challenge, as this addresses the linkages between new CSR initiatives and what
constitutes the firm’s “core”.
--------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------
Although a large body of CSR literature has been devoted to organizational responses to
external stakeholder demands, there has not been much work on how firms attempt to integrate
CSR initiatives in business, and as a result achieve internal fit. Researchers usually tend to
evaluate CSR initiatives from the perspective of societal stakeholders, with only limited attention
devoted to either the difficulties associated with the internal bundling of CSR initiatives and
prevailing business practices, or to the various paths available to overcome these difficulties. In
the present study, we fill the above research gap by applying the core-periphery thesis (Hannan
and Freeman, 1984; Siggelkow, 2002) to the context of recurring CSR initiatives and the
integration thereof with prevailing business practices.
5
First, we use the core-periphery thesis (Hannan and Freeman, 1984; Siggelkow, 2002) to
explore the various approaches firms can select when they “add” recurring CSR initiatives to
their existing business operations. Based on Siggelkow’s analysis of organizational change, we
conceptualize seven major patterns of CSR initiative adoption. These seven patterns form an
organizing framework of alternative ways to link CSR practices and prevailing business routines.
Second, building upon the nature of the linkages between a recurring CSR initiative and
prevailing business practices, we argue that each of the seven patterns will affect the initiative’s
internal and external “fit” in an idiosyncratic fashion. Here, the particular route chosen to bundle
recurring CSR initiatives and prevailing business practices will ultimately determine the extent to
which these CSR initiatives can contribute to business performance and societal goals.
By focusing on the available avenues to integrate recurring CSR initiatives into
prevailing business practices, the paper offers an organizing framework to senior managers for
identifying and evaluating a menu of strategic integration options. We describe seven well-
documented integration patterns, each one combining in an idiosyncratic fashion a new recurring
CSR initiative and prevailing business practices. Here, a key element in managerial selectivity is
the extent to which an internal fit will be pursued or how, on the contrary, recurring CSR
initiatives will be allowed to flourish independently of prevailing business practices, thereby
serving at best the extent of external fit.
Our attention to process aspects of integrating recurring CSR initiatives and prevailing
business routines complements the strategic perspective on CSR developed by Porter and
Kramer (2006) in the sense that we also advocate devoting more attention to internal fit than
focusing mainly on external consistency with societal stakeholder demands (though the latter
obviously remains important). Our core-periphery perspective emphasizes both the internal
6
constraints to CSR initiative implementation and the requisite adjustments to incorporate CSR
practices into prevailing business routines (or failing to do so). The bundling of Porter and
Kramer’s (2006) strategic approach and our core-periphery perspective on CSR leads to a
comprehensive picture of the complexities of CSR initiative adoption, whereby we address the
practicalities of effective implementation.
On the conceptual level, the article contributes to the debate on the "business case" for
CSR initiative adoption, and more specifically on the linkage between CSR initiatives and firm-
level competitiveness (Barnett, 2007). A number of scholars (e.g., Rowley and Berman, 2000;
Ullmann, 1985) have appropriately argued that neither societal nor firm-level returns of CSR
initiatives are self-evident or universally present, but are contingent upon a number of
parameters, calling for conceptual development that would identify and explain the relevant
contingencies. The present article answers this call by proposing that the internal fit between
CSR practices and prevailing business routines may help explain observed heterogeneity in
CSR’s effectiveness at serving firm-level performance goals. Our contingency perspective also
suggests that CSR activities, when focused solely on satisfying external stakeholders’ needs, may
actually weaken the internal fit among prevailing routines in the organization, thereby calling for
more selectivity in choosing and supporting particular CSR initiatives.
Our application of the core-periphery perspective also extends conventional value-chain
analysis thinking to the context of CSR initiative adoption (e.g., Porter and Kramer, 2006): We
advocate studying the complex interactions among routines prevailing in various value chain
activities. Although Porter and Kramer (2006, p. 89) recommended that firms integrate fully
CSR initiatives into all prevailing business routines throughout the value chain, they did not
specify how such integration should proceed, nor what the likely impacts would be.
7
The structure of this article is as follows. In the next section, we investigate seven
patterns of CSR initiative adoption, based on the core-periphery perspective, and describe the
resulting, new conceptual framework. In the third section, we explore the nature of the fit
between CSR initiatives, prevailing business practices and the external environment in each
pattern. The final section discusses the implications and concludes.
CORE-PERIPHERY ELEMENTS AND EXTENSION OF CORE ELEMENTS
Many scholars (e.g., Hannan and Freeman, 1984; Hannan et al., 1996; Romanelli and
Tushman, 1994; Siggelkow, 2002) have argued that organizations are composed of core and
peripheral elements. Core elements are conceptualized as central to the organization’s survival,
whereas peripheral elements are not. Core elements include, inter alia, the organization’s stated
goals, forms of authority within the organization, core technologies, and marketing strategy
(Hannan and Freeman, 1984). Core elements define the organizational identity and determine the
distribution of resources. In contrast, peripheral elements involve operating decisions and
detailed arrangements undertaken either to align the organization with its environment or to
buffer its core from external fluctuations. Core and peripheral elements are especially visible in
organizations such as business firms when systemized as routines/practices.
Core and peripheral elements/practices exhibit different dynamic features. Core practices
are more susceptible to inertial forces and are more resistant to change. Thus, changes in core
practices usually occur slowly, and are mostly incremental rather than disruptive. In contrast,
peripheral practices are easier to change as a function of external demands, save the case of a
crisis situation, when even the core cannot be exempted from radical transformation. As
peripheral practices are normally “attached” to core routines, changes in the latter usually require
8
some adaptation of the former, but not vice versa.
Almost a decade ago, Siggelkow (2002) extended the core-periphery distinction to
describe an organizational system as consisting of core elements, elaborating elements,
independent elements, inconsistent elements, and interactions among these elements. According
to Siggelkow, a core element has two main features: “(1) a high interdependency with other
current organizational elements and (2) a large influence on future organizational elements”
(2002, p. 127). In contrast, elaborating elements interact with existing core elements and
reinforce them (2002, p. 127). In other words, elaborating elements are peripheral in nature but
are core-extending. If two elements do not interact with each other, they are designated as
independent of each other. Finally, inconsistent elements interact with each other but decrease
each other’s value.
IKEA provides a good example of the core – periphery distinction, with elaborating
peripheral practices extending the core routines. The practice of providing only limited customer
service, as exemplified by the small sales staff in the IKEA shops, can be viewed as a core
routine at IKEA, instrumental to making IKEA a cost leader in industry. This core element is
reinforced by a few peripheral, but core-extending routines, such as the practices to provide
detailed explanatory catalogues as well as highly informative displays in the shops, as well as the
custom to package even larger products in low-volume kits amenable to easy transport and self-
assembly by customers, etc.
As a second example, a core practice at the mutual fund firm Vanguard (Siggelkow,
2002) is internalized distribution (in contrast to an earlier practice whereby the firm relied on
external distributors). When Vanguard internalized the distribution function, this decision
immediately changed several more peripheral, but core-extending routines: Vanguard abolished
9
sales fees, cut management fees paid to brokers, and gained flexibility by significantly
decreasing its dependence on outside investment companies.
In the above examples, an inherent hierarchy exists among organizational practices. Here,
core routines are positioned higher-up in the hierarchy and influence more peripheral, but core-
extending practices by re-formulating their content, shifting organizational attention, and
mobilizing resources in their favor (typically at the expense of independent peripheral routines
that are not core-extending). The dominant logic associated with a core routine thus channels
resources and discretionary managerial behavior into very specific directions, and ultimately
molds any core-extending, peripheral practice in the core routine’s own image, in terms of both
substance and process characteristics.
Siggelkow’s (2002) insightful analysis identified four processes that describe changes in
core practices and in the more peripheral, core-extending routines associated with them, namely:
coasting (to keep a core routine without adding core-extending practices within a given period);
patching (to create a new core routine and reinforcing it with core-extending practices);
thickening (to reinforce a core routine with peripheral, core-extending practices), and trimming
(to eliminate a core routine and related peripheral practices). These four processes allow
describing how organizations develop particular configurations of core practices.
A core-periphery understanding of organizations bears some similarity to the popular
resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991; Carmeli and Tishler, 2004; Wernerfelt, 1984),
though the core-periphery perspective and the RBV have different focuses. The RBV suggests
that distinct bundles of organizational resources largely determine organizational performance
(Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). Specifically, resource bundles that are unique, valuable,
nontransferable and imperfectly imitable, namely core capabilities, differentiate the firm
10
strategically from its rivals (Leonard-Barton, 1992). The resource bundling process typically
occurs through the use of routines, as does the deployment and exploitation of the resulting
capabilities. From a core-periphery perspective, any resource usage through a routine, reflects
either a core or a peripheral practice, and interconnections among these practices may lead to
internal/external fit/misfit, thereby enhancing or reducing business performance (Siggelkow,
2001). The RBV emphasizes the substance of core capabilities, whereas the core-periphery
approach pays more attention to the process of establishing organizational practices, and to the
relationships among them.
The core-periphery approach (e.g., Hannan and Freeman, 1984; Hannan et al., 1996;
Romanelli and Tushman, 1994; Siggelkow, 2002), especially its focus on the interactions among
organizational practices, offers a new perspective for analyzing the introduction of recurring
CSR initiatives in business: How do firms add CSR elements to core business practices? What is
the impact of the interactions between CSR practices and business practices on the effectiveness
of CSR initiative adoption?
In the following, we adopt a core-periphery approach to analyze the adoption of CSR
initiatives. Here we follow Siggelkow’s (2002) typology and divide organizational routines into
core and peripheral practices. In our new organizing framework, peripheral practices include
core-extending routines and independent peripheral routines. The former interact with and
augment the associated core routines, whereas the latter bear no relationship with any core
routines, and are more driven by external demands.
Seven Patterns of CSR Initiative Adoption through a Core-Periphery lens
To simplify our analysis of interactions between new, recurring CSR initiatives and core
11
business routines, we assume that senior managers responsible for the latter are largely
indifferent about the prospect of adding new CSR elements. This assumption is in line with the
traditional, mainstream understanding of CSR, namely that “the social responsibility of business
is to increase its profits” (Friedman, 1970). As regards the precise boundaries of what is core and
what is not, strategy researchers have traditionally specified ex ante a hierarchy of organizational
elements with different levels of likelihood that these would change (Hannan and Freeman,
1984; Nicholls-Nixon et al., 2000). A lower likelihood of change can then be associated with
what constitutes “core”. However, the more recent literature, including Siggelkow’s approach
(2002), has moved away from this ex ante specification view and has convincingly argued that
one particular element (e.g., an accounting practice) may be “core” in one firm, and peripheral in
another. In this paper, we build upon Siggelkow’s view (2002) and define both core business
routines and core CSR practices in general terms, as those with a large influence on other
organizational routines and resource allocation, rather than in terms of specific organizational
functions/roles determined ex ante. Any routine that meets the “large influence” criterion is
viewed as a core routine.
From the core-periphery perspective, the main challenge is how to add CSR routines to
the existing core routines, most of which may have been established without any consideration
for CSR. We consider three dimensions that allow identifying seven distinct patterns describing
the inclusion of CSR practices in the firm. The first dimension refers to the creation of new CSR
routines (which may occur when the firm is established or at a later date) versus the status quo or
even the removal of an existing core routine hindering effective CSR outcomes. The second
dimension distinguishes between core and peripheral CSR practices, with the peripheral ones
being either core-extending or independent. This dimension is important, as it is closely related
12
to the expected magnitude of the associated changes, with only core routines having a large
influence on extant practices. The third dimension captures the mechanism via which firms
create and absorb new CSR routines, i.e., through internal development or cooperative behavior
with external partners. We now discuss the seven patterns building upon the three above
dimensions, and show the resulting organizing framework in Figure 2.
--------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
--------------------------------
Pattern 1: Born CSR Oriented.
This pattern describes the situation of firms that have incorporated CSR routines as a
critical part of their organizational systems from inception. A born CSR orientation may result
from the values of the firm’s founders, from specific customer demands, or from strong pressures
to meet expectations of particular stakeholders. From their birth, such business organizations
have been heavily involved in CSR activities and have sought to complement their business
operations with CSR practices, thereby attempting to boost business performance. Since such
firms are born with CSR core elements, a CSR “reflex” tends to direct systematically
organization members’ attention to both external and internal CSR issues, as shown in pattern 1
of Figure 2, where core business and CSR routines are indistinguishable from each other..
The distinctive feature of these “born CSR oriented” firms is management’s early CSR
focus and commitment of specific resources to establish CSR routines at or near the founding.
Starting with a CSR focus appears largely to prevent the conflicts commonly observed when
adding CSR components only after core business processes have been established. One reason
may be that the early allocation of resources dedicated to CSR practices establishes from the
13
outset some CSR routines as “core”, thereby conferring internal legitimacy and reducing the
likelihood of subsequent internal wars for resources.
An example of a born CSR oriented firm is Ben & Jerry's (Theroux, 1993), which has
been able to build a strong reputation as a corporate philanthropist, in addition to being a
successful ice cream business. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield opened an ice cream parlor in
Burlington, Vermont in 1977. Influenced by their 1960s’ radical backgrounds, both founders
were dissatisfied with the ways in which many businesses, in their mind at least, exploited
society and their own employees. They founded Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., based on the
belief in “linked prosperity”. Linked prosperity means that benefits from firm-level growth,
should be shared by shareholders, employees and the community at large (Ben & Jerry’s
Foundation, 2010). These values led to both the gradual expansion of community-related
activities and other CSR undertakings, and to the close integration between social causes and
Ben & Jerry’s core routines in marketing, operations, human resources management, and
finance. For example, in marketing, Ben & Jerry's rejected marketing approaches built upon
conventional marketing research and media spending, but instead focused on promotional
activities connected with social issues. In the area of product design and ingredient sourcing,
Ben & Jerry's even designed product lines intended to serve specific social causes (e.g.,
Rainforest Crunch Ice Cream which contains nut products from the Amazon rainforest to assist
in the preservation of the rainforest). In human resource management, Ben & Jerry's attempted to
offer comprehensive employee benefits programs. In the financial sphere, when engaged in its
first initial public offering, Ben & Jerry's issued some shares exclusively to Vermont residents.
If there were only a close alignment between a single CSR practice and a single core
business activity, that alignment could be interpreted as having little significance to the firm.
14
However, in this case the occurrence of such alignment across several CSR practices and value
chain activities, clearly established CSR routines as “core” at Ben & Jerry’s. This fact was
recognized when Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry's, with the firm described as follows: “B&J was
like a three-legged stool: it had excellent quality, a fun brand, and the social dimension” (Austin
and Leonard, 2008, p. 81). Here, the personal orientation of the founders led to the early CSR
orientation as core, and to CSR practices heavily influencing other organizational practices.
Pattern 2: Patching (creating new CSR core routines).
Patching or creating new CSR core routines refers to building CSR elements that interact
with many other current organizational routines and/or exert major influence on future
organizational practices, as shown in pattern 2 of Figure 2. If a firm is characterized by CSR
core practices, this indicates that CSR co-determines organizational purpose, helps mold the
firm’s identity, and heavily influences resource distribution across the organization. Creating
new CSR core routines typically involves changes in organizational processes as well as in
competences in various parts of the value chain. Such a process also tends to require significant
investments in capital, intermediate materials, and labor (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001).
A genuine interest in creating new CSR core practices can be demonstrated by corporate
efforts to institutionalize the core values driving CSR activities (Maon et al., 2009), e.g., through
drafting ethics codes, establishing ethics guidelines, providing ethics training, and offering top
management support (Jose and Thibodeaux, 1999; Laufer and Robertson, 1997). The purpose of
institutionalizing CSR core values is to encourage employees to consider systematically social
and environmental parameters when making business decisions, or even to make decisions based
on corporate ethics (Laufer and Robertson, 1997). In this way, firms create CSR core practices
15
that interact with core business practices and may contribute to organizational redesign, thereby
affecting both future decisions and organizational performance.
Moreover, CSR core practices may emerge inside existing business routines through
incremental organizational learning. Unfortunately, the academic study of the CSR movement
(Devinney, 2009) is a relatively recent phenomenon and prevents tracking the development of
CSR core elements over long time periods. However, the case of Enel can shed some light on
this incremental learning process. Enel is Italy’s largest power company, and gradually
embedded CSR practices into its strategy and organizational routines, thereby making CSR a
core element in the firm (Pistoni and Songini, 2008a, 2008b). With top management’s
commitment and support, Enel took quite a few initiatives over the years: it published its first
Environmental Report in 1996; it summarized Enel’s environmental policy and developed key
performance indicators in 1999; it adopted an ethics code in 2002; it established a CSR Unit and
EnelDATA unit in 2002, with the former in charge of CSR implementation and communication,
and the latter responsible for CSR planning and monitoring; it incorporated a set of social and
environmental objectives into the company’s business plan and in the budgeting and reporting
systems in 2003; finally, it set personal CSR goals in environmental and social matters that were
tied to individual employee performance assessments in 2006.
More importantly, CSR became an integral part of everyday business decisions, not only
at the managerial level but also at the operational level, mainly through routinized CSR planning
and control processes with key performance indicators (KPIs). In 2006, Enel used 314 KPIs
related to the firm’s financial performance, as well as its environmental and social achievements.
The CSR routines in the realm of monitoring involved not only the Area Coordinators, who
ensured integration of CSR objectives into the divisional business plans, but also the Line
16
Coordinators in charge of consistency between CSR goals and business objectives in functional
departments. For instance, the human resources department compiled employee-related KPIs to
identify performance gaps and to develop corrective actions. The adoption of a central CSR
control structure at Enel together with both divisional and employee KPIs has had widespread
impact on employees’ tasks, and has guided managers’ behavior through mechanisms such as the
identification of CSR gaps and plans for corrective actions, thereby creating a new CSR core
practice.
The incremental development of CSR core routines at Enel and the difficulty of
implementing these in the face of some forces favoring the absence of CSR at the firm’s core,
also suggest that the patching process tends to be slow, as it may require significant adaptation of
extant activities. In many cases, successful implementation of CSR routines at the operational
level may require clear performance measures and related incentives to enhance employees’
commitment, which obviously goes much further than simply institutionalizing CSR elements as
core values in the organization.
Pattern 3: Thickening (creating new CSR routines as peripheral, core-extending practices)
Thickening or adding core-extending CSR practices, supports and reinforces existing
core routines, whether prevailing business routines or routines in the CSR realm, as shown in
pattern 3 of Figure 2. In other words, these new CSR practices mainly build upon extant core
routines and benefit from the strengths thereof.
Pattern 3 has two main characteristics. First, core-extending CSR routines are still
peripheral. Changes in peripheral practices normally do not lead to changes in core routines, but
changes in these core routines do affect the content and process aspects of peripheral elements.
17
Second, CSR core-extending routines do reinforce existing core elements, that is, "two elements
are said to reinforce each other if the value of each element is increased by the presence of the
other element" (Siggelkow, 2002, p. 127). The term "reinforce" underlies the importance of
complementarity, namely "the marginal return of an activity increases in the level of the other
activity" (Stieglitz and Heine, 2007, p. 3). This second feature differentiates Pattern 3 from
Pattern 4 discussed below, with the latter describing new independent, peripheral practices that
do not create synergy with any core routine.
As one example of Pattern 3, many retailers now try to attract new customers by offering
organic food (e.g., the Dutch company Ahold, as analyzed in Kolk and Pinkse, 2006), i.e., by
adding a CSR flavor to their businesses. From the core-periphery perspective, offering organic
food reinforces the above retailers’ service quality and capacity to respond to customers’
expectations, as perceived by customers. Although new offerings may require accessing new
suppliers, the process of adding organic food is not much different from adding any other new
line of vegetables and does not affect prevailing routines in terms of how these firms run their
businesses.
Wal-Mart, the largest US retailer provides another example: “Wal-Mart persuaded a toy
supplier to reduce its packaging. This resulted in the company using 497 fewer freight containers
a year and saving $2.4 million. You can call that cost-cutting or you can call it sustainability”
(Skapinker, 2008, p. 15). In this case, reducing packaging reinforced the core business routine of
cost control at Wal-Mart, thereby strengthening the dominant management approach and leading
to a more tightly coupled system.
Pattern 4: Positioning (creating new CSR routines as independent peripheral practices)
18
Positioning means adding independent, peripheral CSR routines that are not central to the
firm’s strategy and operations, and do not exert much influence on the firm’s future development
trajectory, see pattern 4 in Figure 2. Interestingly, quite a few CSR routines currently
implemented by firms are actually independent, peripheral elements, intentionally separated from
core business routines. For example, though many firms report their CSR activities (Esrock and
Leichty, 1998) and increasingly use web pages or brochures to disseminate their CSR reports
(Snider et al., 2003), many practices in this area are largely symbolic (e.g., Laufer, 2003), with
CSR reports mainly aggregating information from various organizational units, but without
adding real substance to this information or exerting influence on these units. Even if firms did
not publish such CSR reports, their core business activities would hardly be affected.
On a related note, corporate philanthropy practices often reflect the intent to keep CSR
routines and core business routines totally separated. Most philanthropic practices are also
particularly unfocused, a situation lamented by Porter and Kramer (2002), who have called for a
shift towards using corporate philanthropy to influence the firm’s external context and to
enhance its competiveness. In recent years, American firms have increasingly adopted the above
advice (Vogel, 2005), which represents a move from using independent, peripheral CSR routines
towards crafting core-extending ones.
Pattern 5: Relabeling (recognizing current routines as being CSR oriented)
Relabeling implies that current routines, whether core, core-extending or independent
ones, are recognized only ex post as CSR routines, see pattern 5 in Figure 2. Such CSR routines
may have become established in the firm before CSR became a popular concept, and without
being recognized as CSR related. In some cases, especially peripheral practices can easily be
19
relabeled, and support a more positive image of the firm, as perceived by consumers and society.
Importantly in Pattern 5, even when core practices are involved, relabeling does not necessarily
require large investments of corporate resources to pursue new CSR initiatives, and thus
represents a convenient way - related more to changes in branding than to changes in substance -
for firms to “add” CSR initiatives to their activity portfolio.
For example, Nestlé’s value chain in the milk business depends on local sources of milk
from a large number of small farmers (Porter and Kramer, 2006). When Nestlé invested in Moga,
India in 1962, it trained farmers, gave technical assistance and set up collection points in each
town to collect milk. Such activities contributed significantly to local development. However, as
Porter and Kramer pointed out: “Nestlé came to Moga to build a business, not to engage in CSR
… Nestlé’s commitment to working with small farmers is central to its strategy. It enables the
company to obtain a stable supply of high-quality commodities without paying middlemen”
(Porter and Kramer, 2006, p. 90). Thus, working with local farmers was established as a core
element of Nestlé’s business practice, but without it being recognized as a CSR routine. The key
point is that Nestlé did not create the above CSR practice intentionally, but it was simply
relabeled as such, without affecting in the least the firm’s core routines in substantive terms.
As a second example, New Balance, the Boston-based athletic shoe manufacturer, has
always been committed to retaining a portion of its manufacturing base in the United States,
though its main competitors in the industry now largely rely on offshore production (New
Balance, 2010; Veleva, 2010). However, this commitment to home base employment as a core-
extending critical dimension of CSR was not identified in the extant CSR management platform
at New Balance when the firm conducted a full assessment of its CSR activities in 2009. Here,
integrating the commitment to home-base manufacturing into New Balance's CSR framework
20
required only a simple “re-categorization” of this core-extending approach, without any
substantive change in the firm’s operations.
Pattern 6: Trimming (eliminating routines detrimental to CSR) and reconstructing
To reduce negative exposure, firms may trim both core and peripheral routines that are
detrimental to CSR, as a precursor for subsequent adding of CSR practices according to patterns
2, 3, 4 or 7, see pattern 6 in Figure 2, where only the actual trimming is shown as a (temporary)
outcome, and only for peripheral routines. In the context of trimming the core, Siggelkow
(2002) argues that changes in a core routine also affect the related, core-extending, peripheral
practices, but changes in the latter do not necessarily affect the former much. As core-extending,
peripheral practices may reinforce to some extent existing core business routines, trimming
peripheral elements detrimental to CSR may weaken somewhat the strength of the associated
core business routines and negatively affect their value because of some lost synergy. However,
such influence tends to be minor, and the benefits of eliminating routines hindering CSR
development, in terms of impacts on performance sometimes largely outweigh the costs, at least
if such trimming is indeed a precursor of reconstructing according to one of the other patterns.
An example of Pattern 6 is British retailer Marks and Spencer’s removal from its racks of
some profitable but overfished traditional favorites (Maitland, 2003). In 2002, the Marine
Conservation Society published a blacklist of 20 species that scientists had identified as
candidates for overfishing. Marks and Spencer removed most of these species from its shelves,
and ended de facto the (non-CSR) core-extending practice of purchasing and selling ecologically
salient products solely based on their expected profitability. In many cases, firms that have
aborted a practice deemed inappropriate from a CSR perspective, quickly follow-up by adding a
21
routine that does reflect appropriate attention to CSR. One example is that of the England-based,
home supply chain B&Q’s introducing monitoring of its products’ performance in terms of
contributions to various social objectives (Porter and Kramer, 2006, p. 88), as an effective way to
analyze the potential social risks posed by its products.
In the above cases, the removal of a small group of specialty products offered by the two
firms reflects the elimination of a conventional (non-CSR) core-extending purchasing practice,
which was based solely on expected profits. Eliminating this practice does not have a major
effect on the substance and process of these firms’ core routines, even when replaced by another
- often independent, peripheral - practice that does exhibit appropriate attention to CSR issues.
It is conceptually also possible, though empirically less common, to trim an existing core
routine (rather than a peripheral one) because it lacks the required social responsibility features
desired by senior managers. Similar to the daunting job of creating a CSR core routine that
interacts with many other functions within the firm, trimming an existing core practice may
affect many related routines and is often considered a non-starter because it would lead to a
major change for the firm. Trimming is certainly a non-starter for firms in “dirty” industries
(e.g., the tobacco industry), whose core routines are often viewed as socially irresponsible by
societal stakeholders (Palazzo and Richter, 2005). Although it is rare for firms to trim an existing
core element simply because it is detrimental to CSR, firms may take such actions under extreme
external/internal pressures. For example, following a consumer boycott of its products, NIKE
changed from being a company solely interested in making profits to becoming a leader in triple
bottom line thinking, with a focus on social impact assessment and monitoring throughout the
supply chain (Verbeke, 2009). Similarly, Starbucks evolved from being a firm accused of
systematically ripping off poor coffee producers in developing countries (see, for example, the
22
2006 award winning movie Black Gold, from directors Marc and Nick Francis) to a company
heavily involved in promoting fair trade in its coffee purchasing practices. Trimming also
occurred during the recent global financial crisis (which started in 2008), when financial
institutions on the verge of bankruptcy for dealing in repackaged sub-prime mortgages, as a
result of perverse employee and managerial incentive systems, drastically altered their
compensation approaches.
Pattern 7: Cooperating (creating CSR routines through alliances)
Social problems to be addressed by firms, as a precondition to keep their license to
operate, have grown in magnitude and complexity. In some cases, a single company may lack the
capacity to address competently the uncertainty created by its external (social) environment,
whereby cooperation with other organizations may be less costly or more effective to address
specific social issues. As a result, alliances among firms, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), non-profit organizations (NPOs), and other stakeholder groups are increasing and
becoming more strategically important. Alliances facilitate the firm accessing complementary
resources (Nwankwo et al., 2007; Rondinelli and London, 2003), while usually keeping core
business practices unaffected and allowing alliance partners to contribute CSR practices that fit
less well with existing operations, see pattern 7 in Figure 2. An alliance as a vehicle to introduce
CSR in business is somewhat different from the first six patterns, in the sense that it focuses on
the source, rather than the actual process of CSR inclusion. In other words, an alliance may de
facto be associated with one or several of the first six patterns of CSR inclusion. In case pattern
1 occurs, the “Born CSR oriented” designation should be appropriately replaced by a “Reborn
CSR oriented” one. Such a pattern may typically occur after a major crisis in the firm receiving
23
CSR practice infusions from the alliance partner.
CSR infusing alliances may take many forms. For example, a firm can partner with either
a single NGO or multiple NGOs and enter into the alliance on its own or through collaboration
with other firms (Peloza and Falkenberg, 2009); alliances may involve supply chain members or
companies outside the supply chain (Kolk and Pinkse, 2005). Alliances may also vary in the
level of engagement, the importance of the cooperation to the parties' achieving their respective
missions, the magnitude of the financial, in-kind, and intangible resources deployed in the
alliance, the scope of activities, managerial complexity, and the extent of interaction (Austin,
2000).
From a core-periphery perspective, a focal firm may receive contributions from the
alliance partner that affect either type of routine. Peripheral practices are not central to the
organization, but accessing such elements through an alliance may reduce disturbances to current
operations, while at the same time supporting the pursuit of particular CSR objectives. In
contrast, receiving core practices (or resource bundles meant to develop these) from an alliance
reflects the occurrence of a more broadly involved, more deeply influencing alliance type. Here,
the donor organization's core practices are deployed to support collective action and
organizational integration, e.g., when working with suppliers to design and market new products.
The more common case, however, is for recipient firms to access peripheral practices from
alliances, thereby minimizing impacts on core business operations.
For example, Statoil’s Akassa project in Nigeria was funded by Statoil, but it was a
development NGO, namely Pro-Natura that implemented the project (Frynas, 2005). Pro-Natura
“had exceptional developmental expertise and was able to execute the project without
interference from oil-company managers” (Frynas, 2005, p. 593). Pro-Natura conducted an in-
24
depth evaluation of the local community to investigate local needs, with staff living in the
villages to exchange information with local people. Statoil and Pro-Natura’s joint efforts to get
multiple local stakeholders such as chiefs, women, and youths involved and to allow the local
community to lead the project, has been viewed as a best practice development project in
Nigeria’s oil industry (Frynas, 2005, p. 593). This project nevertheless left Statoil’s core business
routines largely unaffected.
INTERNAL FIT BETWEEN CSR PRACTICES AND CORE BUSINESS ROUTINES
As noted earlier in this article, much of the CSR literature has viewed CSR initiatives as a
response to the specific demands of external stakeholders (Jenkins, 2005; Spar and La Mure,
2003), meant, inter alia, to enhance corporate reputation (Fombrun, 2005), preempt legal
sanctions (Parker, 2002), respond to NGO actions or manage risk (Fombrun et al., 2000; Husted,
2005), and generate customer loyalty (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). Such a predominantly
external consistency focus of contemporary CSR practices has led to the bulk of these being
disjointed and "almost never truly strategic" (Porter and Kramer, 2002, p. 57). Here, insufficient
attention has been devoted to the coherence among various CSR initiatives and to the internal
consistency between CSR initiatives and core business activities. As noted earlier, this article
fills the gap by creating a new organizing framework for analyzing the different patterns that
firms can adopt when incorporating recurring CSR initiatives into business operations, thereby
focusing especially on the issue of internal fit between the firm's extant core business practices
and CSR routines, i.e., the middle section of Figure 1.
The concept of fit has been a central theme in the strategy literature (Miller, 1996;
Venkatraman and Camillus, 1984). It is commonly held that organizations, as systems of
25
interconnected practices, must achieve a fit both with their external environments (e.g.,
Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Pennings, 1987) and internally, in terms of strategy, structure and
processes (e.g., Chandler, 1962; Learned et al., 1965). The importance of internal fit has also
been highlighted in the CSR literature, such as the suggestion on the impact of "the consistency
between an organization's overall strategy and its CSR activities and [the coherence] within the
varieties of CSR activities contemplated during any given period of time" (Basu and Palazzo,
2008, p. 129).
The core-periphery perspective has allowed us to examine the issue of internal fit, by
identifying different types of interaction between core and peripheral practices inside the
organization. First, not all organizational routines interact with each other. Practices not linked
to core routines are independent practices. Independent practices serve neither coherence nor
internal consistency. Second, some practices reinforce one another, leading to a high degree of
coherence and internal consistency. Third, some organizational practices that do interact with
each other are clearly incoherent and inconsistent, with this lack of fit resulting in a decline of
organizational performance. Recognizing the above three types of interactions between practices,
and the fact that the three types may co-exist in a single firm, we now focus on two archetypes of
organizational systems, namely firms that operate as loosely coupled systems, and those that are
tightly coupled.
In the case of loose coupling (e.g., unrelatedly diversified companies with a weak head
office), organizational practices in various parts of the company are only weakly connected to
each other, and therefore they can vary independently of each other (Aldrich, 1979; Danneels,
2007). As a result, any effects of new CSR practices can be analyzed by examining the
relatively localized and isolated relationships between these CSR practices and relevant core
26
routines. The impact of eliminating extant routines is also limited to the localized connections
between CSR practices and existing core routines.
In contrast, in cases of tight coupling (such as narrow-niche companies active in the high-
precision, medical diagnostic tools market), all value chain activities, from R&D to customer
service, share detailed common routines. These routines guide technical and human behavior,
and are considered instrumental to business performance. Here, all core and peripheral routines
are strongly interdependent and both coherence and internal consistency must be assessed
globally rather than locally (Orton and Weick, 1990; Weick, 1976). Thus, organizational changes
are likely to have ramifications throughout the firm, and effects of new CSR practices therefore
need to be analyzed by taking into account the whole system of core routines. In the above two
organizational systems (loosely coupled versus tightly coupled), the seven patterns of CSR
adoption may thus interact with existing, core routines in distinct ways, thereby affecting
coherence and internal consistency. There are at least four main differences between loosely
coupled and tightly coupled organizations in terms of expected outcomes of the CSR adding
patterns discussed above.
First, whether the organization is loosely coupled or tightly coupled matters perhaps
most in terms of immediate effects when patterns 3 and 6 are adopted. With pattern 3, firms
extend current core business routines by adding peripheral CSR practices, thereby linking CSR
with the organization's core operational processes (Freeman and Gilbert, 1988; Wheeler et al.,
2003). In cases of tightly coupled firms, adding such a core-extending, peripheral practice will
have implications throughout the organization, and therefore challenges of coherence and
internal consistency must be addressed globally rather than locally. With Pattern 6, the removal
of a peripheral practice, though perhaps instrumental to boosting CSR performance, will destroy
27
the earlier complementarity between this practice and the associated, possibly highly effective
core routine, thereby leading to decreased synergy. In cases of tightly coupled organizations, the
effects of such reduced synergy must again be assessed globally rather than locally.
Second, for firms that are loosely coupled, the long-term impact on internal consistency
of new CSR routines introduced according to pattern 2 merits further discussion. With pattern 2,
new CSR core routines may interact with extant business core routines only locally rather than
throughout the firm, meaning that substantial implicit inconsistency may exist among
organizational units, even in the longer run and where core practices are concerned. This may be
especially problematic in unrelatedly diversified companies, where a “rotten apple” unit may be
sheltered from state-of-the-art CSR practices introduced elsewhere in the firm, and may
ultimately threaten the survival of the entire company (as was the case with General Electric’s
nuclear weapons activities, until they were finally sold off, a story expressed compellingly in
Debra Chasnoff’s movie Deadly Deception - General Electric, Nuclear Weapons, and Our
Environment, that won the 1992 Academy Award for Best Documentary – Short Subject). In
more general terms, such implicit incoherence across CSR practices among organizational units
and implicit internal inconsistency between CSR and business core routines may not have direct
effects on the company’s performance in the short run, but may lead to a sharp decline of the
credibility of a firm’s CSR practices and its overall business performance in the long run.
Third, in case of a tightly coupled organizational system, patterns 2, 3, and 6 can actually
trigger multidimensional interactions among all related practices. The outcomes of these
interactions may be difficult to predict fully, because of the sheer number of potential linkages
involved (Ghemawat and Levinthal, 2008). Even though the ultimate outcome may be an
increase in CSR performance and overall business performance, the probability of internal
28
conflict because of short run inconsistencies is high.
Fourth, the lack of a clear understanding of the interactions between CSR initiatives and
extant business routines may cause practitioners and researchers to overestimate the
effectiveness of new CSR initiatives. In the case of a loosely coupled organization, CSR
practices are more likely to function independently of other organizational routines, and are
therefore less likely to trigger sweeping changes to the firm’s core. The great paradox associated
with the functioning of independent CSR practices is that they look good at the surface but may
not mean much in substantive terms. Independent CSR practices are visible, have a performance
that can easily be identified, isolated, monitored and assessed in great detail, and these practices
can easily be used for CSR advertising purposes. However, at the same time, such practices do
not affect the core routines in the organization, and therefore substantial implicit incoherence and
inconsistency with prevailing business practices may remain, even over the longer term. For
example, some researchers and CSR activists have advocated the formalization of CSR
initiatives through external certification (e.g., ISO 14001), but such formalization spearheaded
by an independent internal unit in the company may, in the case of a loosely coupled firm,
represent a complete fallacy to the extent that it does not affect core routines.
The focus of our organizing framework on internal fit between CSR practices and the
firm’s business core routines in the seven patterns obviously does not mean that external fit is
unimportant. Some CSR practices do demand extensive cooperation and coordination among
environmental managers, engineers, and production executives (Cordano and Frieze, 2000;
Westley and Vredenburg, 1996), and therefore cross-functional coordination may be crucial. The
more CSR management relies on other functions for implementation, the more likely CSR
practices will be intertwined with existing functional management practices and operate as core-
29
extending elements. Unfortunately, a sole focus on CSR as core-extending practices to achieve
internal fit, may be at the expense of external fit with a variety of societal stakeholders. For
example, a study of the Australian banking sector (Pomering and Dolnicar, 2009) finds that
consumers’ understanding of many of the social issues banks have attempted to address is very
low, suggesting that CSR practices at these banks “do not connect” with customers. The external
institutional environment for CSR management (Gardberg and Fombrun, 2006) may be very
different from the institutional environment relevant to business operations. Even though it is
advisable for firms to design CSR practices consistent with core business practices, it remains
critical to understand the complexities of corporate citizenship activities across market and
geographies in order to achieve both internal and external fit.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The sharp increase in societal stakeholders’ demands for CSR initiatives, and the
simultaneous managerial requirement that any such initiatives should improve business
performance, has triggered various alternative strategies to integrate CSR in prevailing business
activities. Here, what matters is a threefold fit, as shown in Figure 1. First is the fit between CSR
initiatives and external stakeholder demands, i.e., external consistency. Second is the fit between
core business routines and CSR related routines, i.e., internal consistency. Third is the fit among
the CSR related routines themselves, i.e., coherence.
We have argued in the present paper that a mere focus on the external fit issue misses the
importance of achieving both internal consistency with core business routines and coherence
among CSR practices. A purely external focus thus reduces CSR’s potential to contribute to
business performance. We have focused specifically on the challenge of achieving internal
30
consistency between CSR practices and core business routines.
We applied the core-periphery perspective to CSR initiative adoption, and this allowed
creating a new organizing framework based upon seven distinct patterns of integrating such
initiatives in business operations, see Figure 2. Each of the seven patterns is characterized by a
particular configuration of answers to the following three questions, namely (a) as far as core
routines are concerned, whether the pattern involves the addition of a CSR practice to a core
business routine, the removal of an existing, core business routine that hinders CSR initiative
adoption, or the status quo in terms of core business routines; (b) as far as peripheral practices
are involved, whether the pattern involves a CSR practice interacting with core business routines
(and being core-extending) or being independent of these, and (c) whether the CSR routine is
developed internally versus via alliance activity with external actors.
The seven patterns lead to various types of internal consistency, i.e., fit (or lack thereof)
between CSR practices and core business routines. Recognizing the linkages among the three
above dimensions, and the resulting CSR routine integration patterns will hopefully lead to a
better understanding of firms’ CSR impacts and generate a rich research agenda on the
interactions of any firm’s prevailing strategy and organizational characteristics with its CSR
initiatives. Our analysis has the following implications.
First, our integrative framework, as described in Figure 1 adds a new dimension to the
dominant, external stakeholder oriented perspective on adopting CSR initiatives. It provides
insight to managers seeking to reflect on the process of CSR initiative adoption, and attempting
to increase the positive impacts on business performance of such CSR initiatives. Treating the
adoption of CSR initiatives as critically important to core business activities may not be new at
the conceptual level to many managers, but the effective implementation of such a view has
31
proven more challenging. The key question is how to add new CSR initiatives to current business
operations without negatively affecting the status quo. Here, the challenge is to introduce a set
of CSR routines that are coherent, can be made internally consistent with core business activities
and their underlying resource base (in addition to being consistent with external stakeholder
demands), and ultimately contribute to business and social performance.
Ghemawat and Levinthal (2008) suggest in the context of complex, multi-layered
organizations, that specifying a complete bundle of policy choices may be a daunting job. Such
organizations should therefore focus on a small number of highly influential choices, namely
“choices whose resolution impacts the optimal resolution of a great number of other choices and
can be thought of as strategic” (p.1650). Following these highly influential choices, usually made
higher up in the hierarchy, organizations can then make more tactical, subsequent choices, to
earn either additional, incremental advantages or to mitigate the negative effects of higher order
choices.
In accordance with the above line of thinking, our analysis suggests it is particularly
important to identify core routines in tightly coupled organizations, the presence of which will
affect the potential for fit of a great number of other choices, especially in terms of achieving
internal consistency and contribution to business performance. Here, it is critical to identify the
nature of the interactions between potential new CSR routines and core business routines.
However, for loosely coupled organizations, decisions are much simpler, as internal consistency
can be achieved in a more localized fashion. The potential cost associated with this direct benefit
is twofold: first, focusing on localized consistency sometimes triggers substantial implicit
inconsistency with other units in the organization, thereby creating the seeds of conflict, e.g., if a
crisis situation forces senior management to engage in much tighter coupling and reverting to
32
core routines that must be deployed throughout the company. Second, localized consistency
makes for good advertising of allegedly innovative CSR practices, but this may miss influencing
most of the firm’s core routines, thereby validating the often voiced criticism of, e.g.,
“greenwashing” in the environmental performance sphere.
Second, our examination of the various patterns represents progress toward uncovering
the contexts in which CSR can affect business performance. In disentangling the murky link
between CSR and financial performance, Barnett (2007) has argued that the business case for
CSR must account for the path dependence of firm-stakeholder relations and the firm’s CSR
history. In line with Barnett's view on the importance of path dependence, our analysis highlights
the path-dependent nature of CSR initiatives and core business routines. The overall impact of a
CSR initiative on business performance not only relies on the direct effects of such initiative, but
also depends on the process through which the CSR initiative is linked as a practice to pre-
existing core business routines, thereby suggesting a more configurational approach to the
analysis of CSR-financial performance relations.
Our perspective is in line with the recent advice of Basu and Plazzo (2008). In discussing
how managers think, discuss, and act with respect to their key stakeholders, these authors
emphasize the potential of applying a configurational approach, whereby two elements must be
studied. First, the fit between external contexts (e.g., a community's past experience), which tap
into managers’ inherent CSR sensitivities, and the firm's “CSR character”, the latter also being
path dependent. Second, the impact of such a fit on business performance: recognizing the
continued importance of external fit, we agree that internal fit between CSR and prevailing
business practices may produce variable financial returns to investments in CSR.
Finally, the article provides a menu of options for senior executives seeking to match
33
prevailing business routines with their CSR activities. It offers a framework for them to identify
different patterns of adding CSR initiatives to extant business activities. The seven well-
documented patterns allow executives to reflect on the impact of adopting CSR initiatives on
their business and to ensure that the value of their CSR investment is maximized and the
potential disturbance to business operations limited. Faced with multiple choices to implement
an initiative, senior executives can then balance the requirement for external fit with societal
stakeholder demands and internal fit with extant organizational routines. Although such a
balance will depend on the prevailing reservoir of practices - both CSR related and core business
related ones - the use of our new organizing framework will hopefully facilitate decision making
in this matter.
34
References
Aldrich, H. A.: 1979, Organizations and Environments, (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Atkinson, Anthony A., John H. Waterhouse and Robert B. Wells: 1997, ‘A Stakeholder
Approach to Strategic Performance Measurement’, Sloan Management Review 38(3), 25-37.
Austin. James E.: 2000, ‘Strategic Collaboration between Nonprofits and Businesses’, Nonprofit
& Voluntary Sector Quarterly 29(1), 69-97.
Austin, James E. and Herman B. “Dutch” Leonard: 2008, 'Can the Virtuous Mouse and the
Wealthy Elephant Live Happily ever after?', California Management Review 51(1), 77-102.
Barnett, M. L.: 2007, ‘Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to
Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794-816.
Barney, J. B.: 1991, ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’, Journal of
Management 17(1), 99–120.
Basu, K. and G. Palazzo: 2008, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of
Sensemaking’, Academy of Management Review 33(1), 122-136.
Ben & Jerry’s Foundation: 2010, http://www.benandjerrysfoundation.org/who-we-are.html,
accessed on October 18 2010.
Bhattacharya, C. B. and S. Sen: 2004, ‘When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Social
Initiatives’, California Management Review 47(1), 9–24.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Daniel Korschun, and Sankar Sen: 2009, 'Strengthening Stakeholder–
Company Relationships through Mutually Beneficial Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives',
Journal of Business Ethics 85, 257–272
Carmeli, A. and A. Tishler: 2004, ‘The Relationships between Intangible Organizational
Elements and Organizational Performance’, Strategic Management Journal 25, 1257-1278.
Chandler, A.: 1962, Strategy and Structure, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
Cordano, M. and I. H. Frieze: 2000, ‘Pollution Reduction Preferences of U.S. Environmental
Managers: Applying Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior, Academy of Management Journal
43(4), 627-641.
Danneels, E.: 2007, ‘The process of technological competence leveraging’, Strategic
Management Journal 28, 511-533.
Devinney, Timothy M.: 2009, ‘Is the Socially Responsible Corporation a Myth? The Good, the
Bad, and the Ugly of Corporate Social Responsibility', Academy of Management Perspectives
35
23(2), 44-56.
Esrock, S. and G. Leichty: 1998, ‘Social Responsibility and Corporate Web Pages:
Selfpresentation or Agenda Setting?’, Public Relations Review 24(3), 305-319.
Fombrun, C. J.: 2005, ‘The Leadership Challenge: Building Resilient Corporate Reputations’, in
J. P. Doh and S. A. Stumpf (Eds.), Handbook on Responsible Leadership and Governance in
Global Business, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK), pp. 54–68.:
Fombrun, C. J., N. A. Gardberg, and M. L. Barnett: 2000, ‘Opportunity Platforms and Safety
Nets: Corporate Citizenship and Reputational Risk’, Business and Society Review 105, 85–106.
Freeman, R. E. and Daniel R. Gilbert: 1988, Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics,
(Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Friedman, Milton. September 13, 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its
Profits, The New York Times Magazine.
Frynas, Jedrzej George: 2005, ‘The False Developmental Promise of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Evidence from Multinational Oil Companies’, International Affairs 81(3), 581-
598.
Gardberg, N. A. and C. J. Fombrun: 2006, ‘Corporate Citizenship: Creating Intangible Assets
across Institutional Environments’, Academy of Management Review 31(2), 329-346.
Ghemawat, P. and Levinthal, D.: 2008, ‘Choice interactions and business strategy’, Organization
Science 54(9), 1638-1651.
Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman: 1984, ‘Structural Inertia and Organizational Change’, American
Sociological Review 49, 149-164.
Hannan, M. T., M. D. Burton, and J. N. Baron: 1996, ‘Inertia and Change in the Early Years:
Employment Relations in Young, High Technology Firms’, Industrial and Corporate Change
5(2), 503-536.
Husted, B. W.: 2005, ‘Risk Management, Real Options, and Corporate Social Responsibility’,
Journal of Business Ethics 60, 175–183.
Jamali, D., M. Zanhour and K. Tamar: 2009, ‘Peculiar Strengths and Relational Attributes of
SMEs in the Context of CSR’, Journal of Business Ethics 87, 355-377.
Jenkins, R.: 2005, ‘Globalization, Corporate Social Responsibility and Poverty’, International
Affairs 81, 525–540.
Jose, A. and M. S. Thibodeaux: 1999, ‘Institutionalization of Ethics: The Perspective of
Managers’, Journal of Business Ethics 22(2), 133-143.
36
Kolk, A. and J. Pinkse: 2006, ‘Stakeholder Mismanagement and Corporate Social Responsibility
Crises’, European Management Journal 24(1), 59-72.
Kolk, A. and J. Pinkse: 2005, ‘Business Responses to Climate Change: Identifying Emergent
Strategies’, California Management Review 47(3), 6-20.
Laufer, W. S.: 2003, ‘Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing’, Journal of Business
Ethics 43(3), 253-261.
Laufer, W. S. and D. C. Robertson: 1997, ‘Corporate Ethics Initiatives as Social Control’,
Journal of Business Ethics 16(10), 1029-1047.
Lawrence, P. and J. Lorsch: 1967, Organization and environment, (Harvard Business School
Press, Boston).
Learned, E., C. Christensen, K. Andrews, and W. Guth: 1965, Business Policy: Text and Cases,
(Irwin, Homewood, IL).
Leonard-Barton, D.: 1992, ‘Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New
Product Development’, Strategic Management Journal 13, 111–125.
Maitland, Alison: 2003, ‘M&S Checks out a Healthier Shopping List’, Financial Times Dec. 4,
17.
Maon, F., A. Lindgreen, and V. Swaen: 2009, ‘Designing and Implementing Corporate Social
Responsibility: An Integrative Framework Grounded in Theory and Practice’, Journal of
Business Ethics 87, 71–89.
Margolis, J. and J. Walsh: 2003, ‘Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by
Business’, Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268–305.
McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2001, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm
Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 26, 117–127.
Miller, Danny: 1996, ‘Configurations Revisited’, Strategic Management Journal 17, 505-12.
New Balance: 2010, New Balance Company Web Site, http://www.newbalance.com/usa/,
accessed on June 6, 2010.
Nicholls-Nixon, Charlene L., Arnold C. Cooper, and Carolyn Y. Woo: 2000, ‘Strategic
Experimentation: Understanding Change and Performance in New Ventures’, Journal of
Business Venturing 15, 493–521.
Nwankwo, E., N. Phillips, and P. Tracey: 2007, ‘Social Investment through Community
Enterprise: The Case of Multinational Corporations Involvement in the Development of Nigerian
37
Water Resources’ Journal of Business Ethics 73, 91–101.
Orton, JD. and KE. Weick: 1990, ‘Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualization’, Academy of
Management Review 15(2), 203-223.
Palazzo, Guido and Ulf Richter: 2005, ‘CSR Business as Usual? The Case of the Tobacco
Industry’, Journal of Business Ethics 61, 387-401.
Parker, C.: 2002, The Open Corporation, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Peloza, John and Loren Falkenberg: 2009, ‘The Role of Collaboration in Achieving Corporate
Social Responsibility Objectives’, California Management Review 51 (3), 95-113.
Pennings, J.: 1987, ‘Structural Contingency Theory: A Multivariate Test’, Organization Studies
8, 223-240.
Pistoni, A. and L. Songini: 2008a, ‘Enel: CSR and performance measurement (A)’, case no. 709-
020-1SDA, Bocconi University and EABIS.
Pistoni, A. and L. Songini: 2008b, ‘Enel: CSR and performance measurement (B)’, case no. 709-
021-1SDA, Bocconi University and EABIS.
Pomering, A. and S. Dolnicar: 2009, ‘Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR
implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives?’, Journal of Business Ethics 85, 285-
301.
Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2002, ‘The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’,
Harvard Business Review 80(12), 56-68.
Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2006, ‘Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive
Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business Review 84(12), 78-92.
Romanelli, E. and M. L. Tushman: 1994, ‘Organizational Transformation as Punctuated
Equilibrium: An Empirical Test’, Academy of Management Journal 37(5), 1141-1166.
Rondinelli, D. A. and T. London: 2003, ‘How Corporations and Environmental Groups
Cooperate: Assessing Cross-sector Alliances and Collaborations’, Academy of Management
Executive 17(1), 61-76.
Rowley, T. and S. Berman: 2000, ‘A Brand New Brand of Corporate Social Performance’,
Business and Society 39, 397– 418.
Siggelkow, Nicolaj: 2001, ‘Change in the Presence of Fit: The Rise, the Fall, and the
Renaissance of Liz Claiborne’, Academy of Management Journal 44, 838-857.
Siggelkow, Nicolaj: 2002, ‘Evolution toward Fit’, Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 125-
38
159.
Skapinker, Michael: February 12, 2008, ‘Corporate Responsibility is not Quite Dead, Financial
Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7990a3ec-d8a9-11dc-8b22-0000779fd2ac.html?
nclick_check=1, accessed on April 24, 2008.
Snider, J., R. P. Hill, and D. Martin: 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century:
A View from the World's Most Successful Firms’, Journal of Business Ethics 48(2), 175-87.
Spar, D. L. and L. T. La Mure: 2003, ‘The Power of Activism: Assessing the Impact of NGOs on
Global Business’, California Management Review 45(3), 78-101.
Stieglitz, Nils and Klaus Heine: 2007, ‘Innovations and the Role of Complementarities in a
Strategic Theory of the Firm’, Strategic Management Journal 28, 1-15.
Theroux, J.: 1993, 'Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream, Inc: Keeping the Mission(s) Alive’,
Harvard Business Publishing, Reference: 9-392-025.
Ullmann, A.: 1985, ‘Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationship
among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance’, Academy of
Management Review 10, 450–477.
Veleva, Vesela: 2010, ‘New Balance: Developing an Integrated CSR Strategy', Ivey publishing,
Reference no. 9B10M011.
Venkatraman, N. and John C. Camillus: 1984, ‘Exploring the Concept of 'fit' in Strategic
Management', Academy of Management Review 9(3), 513-525.
Verbeke, A.: 2009, International Business Strategy: Rethinking the Foundations of Global
Corporate Success, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Vogel, D. J.: 2005, ‘Is there a Market for Virtue? The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility’, California Management Review 47(4), 19-45.
Weick, KE.: 1976, ‘Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems’, Administrative
Science Quarterly 21(1), 1-19.
Wernerfelt, B.: 1984, ‘The Resource-based View of the Firm’, Strategic Management Journal
5(2), 171–180.
Westley, F. and H. Vredenburg: 1996, ‘Sustainability and the Corporation: Criteria for Aligning
Economic Practice with Environmental Protection’, Journal of Management Inquiry 5(2), 104-
119.
Wheeler, D., B. Colbert and R. E. Freeman: 2003, ‘Focusing on value: Reconciling corporate
social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world’, Journal of
39
General Management 28(3), 1–28.
40
41
42
