Skip to main content
Log in

Ethics and Law: Guiding the Invisible Hand to Correct Corporate Social Responsibility Externalities

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tokenistic short-term economic success is not good indicia of long-term success. Sustainable business success requires sustained existence in a corporation’s political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental contexts. Far beyond the traditional economic focus, consumers, governments and public interest groups alike increasingly expect the business sector to take on more social and environmental responsibilities. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the model in which economic, social and environmental responsibilities are fulfilled simultaneously. However, there is insufficient empirical evidence that demonstrates genuine widespread adoption of CSR in practice, and its underlying reasons. Though research in CSR has been rapidly growing, its commercial reality and implications need to be further improved if it is to inspire corporations to voluntarily adopt CSR. In the literature, Carroll’s four-dimensional (economic, legal, ethical and discretionary) CSR framework offers a theoretical basis for developing an empirically based model to explain why and how profit-motivated managers take up CSR voluntarily. Our study has developed a structural equation model to identify the key factors and their interactions that influence economically motivated managers to take on voluntary CSR, and validate Carroll’s four-dimensional construct. The results support Carroll’s four-dimensional CSR framework, with the exception of the link pertaining to the relationship between economic and discretionary/voluntary responsibility. This characterises the economic reality that financial market-driven economic responsibility does not automatically translate into social responsibility. Nevertheless, the empirical results demonstrate that corporations can be led to engage in more voluntary CSR activities to achieve social good when appropriate legal and ethical controls are in place.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilera, R, Rupp, D, Williams, C & Ganapathi, J: 2007, ‘Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 32, 836-863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali, S: 2003, Mining the environment and Indigenous development conflicts (University of Arizona Press, Tucson).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C & Bieniaszewska, R: 2005, ‘The role of corporate social responsibility in an oil company’s expansion into new territories’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 12, 1-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J & Gerbing, D: 1988, ‘Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach’, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K: 1984, ‘An empirical measure of corporate social orientation’, in Research in corporate social performance and policy, 6th edn, ed. L Preston, (JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K, Carroll, A & Hatfield, J: 1985, ‘An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability’, Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K., J. Hatfield and A. Carroll: 1983, ‘Instrument Development and Application in Corporate Social Responsibility’, Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.

  • Banerjee, S: 2007, Corporate social responsibility: The good the bad and the ugly (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham).

    Google Scholar 

  • Batten, J & Birch, D: 2005, ‘Defining corporate citizenship: Evidence from Australia’, Asia Pacific Business Review, 11(3), 293-308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumöl, W & Blackman, S: 1991, Perfect markets and easy virtue: Business ethics and the invisible hand (Blackwell, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P: 1990, ‘Comparative fit indexes in structural models’, Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S, Wicks, A, Kotha, S & Jones, T: 1999, ‘Does stakeholder orientation matter?: The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488-506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhuyan, N. and S. Senapaty: 2004, ‘What is at Stake in Corporate Social Responsibility?’, in S. Sengupta (ed.), Business-Social Partnerships: An International Perspective (Aalekh Publishers, Jaipur, India).

  • Birch, D: 2004, ‘Doing business in new ways: Corporate community partnerships’, in Business-social partnerships: An international perspective, ed. S Sengupta, (Aalekh Publishers, Jaipur, India).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boasson, E: 2009, ‘On the management success of regulative failure: Standardised CSR instruments and the oil industry’s climate performance’, Corporate Governance, 9(3), 313-325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J: 1994, ‘Fiduciary duties and the shareholder-management relation: Or, what’s so special about shareholders? ‘Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 393-407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J: 2000, Ethics and the conduct of business 3rd edn (Prentice Hall,, Upper Saddle River, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottomley, S & Forsyth, A: 2007, ‘The new corporate law: Corporate social responsibility and employees’ interests’, in The new corporate accountability: Corporate social responsibility and the law, eds. D McBarnet, A Voiculescu & T Campbell, (Cambridge University Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz, R & Rosenthal, S: 1997, ‘Business and society: What’s in a name?’ International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(2), 180-201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullis, C & Fumiko, I: 2007, ‘Corporate Environmentalism’, in The debate over corporate social responsibility, eds. G Cheney, J Roper & S May, (Oxford University Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E: 1999, Corporate community relations: The principle of the neighbour of choice (Quorum Books, Westport).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B, Farh, J & Hegarty, W: 2000, ‘A cross-cultural comparison of corporate social responsibility orientation: Hong Kong vs United States students’, Teaching Business Ethics, 4(2), 151-167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C & Fehr, E: 2006, ‘When does ‘economic man’ dominate social behavior?’ Science, 311(5757), 47-52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J: 2007, ‘Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility’, Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Democracy and Corporate Accountability Commission: 2002, The New Balance Sheet: Corporate Profits and Responsibility in the 21st Century.

  • Carroll, A.: 1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4, 497–505.

  • Carroll, A.: 1987, ‘In Search of the Moral Manager’, Business Horizons March–April, 7–15.

  • Carroll, A: 1989, Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (South-Western, Cincinnati, OH).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A.: 1991, ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders’, Business Horizons 34, 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A.: 1994, ‘Social Issues in Management Research: Experts’ Views, Analysis and Commentary’, Business & Society 33, 5–29.

  • Carroll, A: 1998, ‘The four faces of corporate citizenship’, Business and Society Review, 100(1), 1-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A: 1999, ‘Corporate social responsibility’, Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A: 2000, ‘Ethical challenges for business in the new millennium: Corporate social responsibility and models of management morality’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 33-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A: 2004, ‘Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge’, Academy of Management Executive, 18, 114-120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, G, Roper, J & May, S: 2007, ‘The debate over corporate social responsibility: An overview’, in The debate over corporate social responsibility, eds. G Cheney, J Roper & S May, (Oxford University Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, P, Kwon, I, Stoeberl, P & Baumhart, R: 2003, ‘A cross-cultural comparison of ethical attitudes of business managers: India, Korea and the United States’, Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 263-287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R & Trost, M: 1998, ‘Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance’, in The handbook of social psychology, vol. 2, eds. D Gilbert, S Fiske & G Lindzey, (McGraw-Hill, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T.: 2008, ‘Becoming Everyone: The Politics of Sympathy in Deleuze and Rorty’, Radical Philosophy 147, 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J: 1980, ‘Efficiency, exchange, and auction: Philosophic aspects of the economic approach to law’, California Law Review, 68(2), 221-249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colley, J, Doyle, J, Logan, G & Stettinius, W: 2003, Corporate governance (McGraw-Hill, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, C & Abbot, J: 2007, ‘Corporate social responsibility and public policy making’, in The debate over corporate social responsibility, eds. G Cheney, J Roper & S May, (Oxford University Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, R & Goossens, L: 2004, ‘Expert judgement elicitation for risk assessments of critical infrastructure’, Journal of Risk Research, 7(6), 643-656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A: 2000, ‘Corporate greening as amoralization’, Organization Studies, 21(4), 673-696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A & Matten, D: 2004, Business ethics (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowther, D.: 2004, ‘Limited Liability or Limited Responsibility?’, in D. Crowther and L. Rayman-Bacchus (eds.), Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility (Ashgate, Burlington).

  • Dallas, L: 2003, ‘A preliminary inquiry into the responsibility of corporations and their directors and officers for corporate climate: The psychology of Enron’s demise’, Rutgers Law Journal, 35(1), 1-68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detomasi, D: 2008, ‘The political roots of corporate social responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 807-819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doane, D: 2004, ‘Good intentions - bad outcomes? The broken promise of CSR reporting’, in The triple bottom line: Does it all add up?, eds. A Henriques & J Richardson, (Earthscan, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T.: 1999, ‘Making Stakeholder Theory Whole’, Academy of Management Review 23(2), 237–241

  • Donaldson, T. and L. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65–91

  • Edmondson, V & Carroll, A: 1999, ‘Giving back: An examination of the philanthropic motivations, orientations and activities of large black-owned businesses’, Journal of Business Ethics, 19(2), 171-179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edoho, F: 2008, ‘Oil transnational corporations: Corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 210-222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J: 2004, ‘Enter the triple bottom line’, in The triple bottom line: Does it all add up?, eds. A Henriques & J Richardson, (Earthscan, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Environics: 2000, The Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility.

  • Fornell, C & Larcker, D: 1981, ‘Evaluating structural equations with unobservable variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston)

  • Freeman, R.: 1994, ‘The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 409–421

  • Freeman, R & Gilbert, D: 1988, Corporate strategy and the search for ethics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs).

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M: 1962, Capitalism and freedom (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine Sept 13, 32–33, 122, 126.

  • Frooman, J: 1997, ‘Socially irresponsible and illegal behavior and shareholder wealth: A meta analysis of event studies’, Business and Society, 36, 221-249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frynas, J: 2009, ‘Corporate social responsibility in the oil and gas sector’, Journal of World Energy Law & Business, 2(3), 178-195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, P.: 2007, ‘Is There An Expressive Function of Law? An Empirical Analysis of Voting Laws with Symbolic Fines’, American Law and Economics Review 9, 135–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E & Melé, D: 2004, ‘Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory’, Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2), 51-71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glinski, C.: 2007, ‘Corporate Codes of Conduct: Moral or Legal Obligations?’, in D. McBarnet, A. Voiculescu and T. Campbell (eds.), The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law (Cambridge University Press, New York).

  • Goodpaster, K: 1996, ‘Business ethics and stakeholder analysis’, in Beyond integrity: A Judeo-Christian approach, eds. S Rae & K Wong, (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI), 246-254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J: 2010, ‘Do markets crowd out virtues? An Aristotelian framework’, Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 1-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J & Mahon, J: 1997, ‘The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research’, Business and Society, 36, 5-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S: 2005, Capitalism at the crossroads (Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haufler, V: 2001, A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a global economy (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C & Maclagan, P: 2004, ‘Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, I & Sadorsky, P: 1999, ‘The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance’, The Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87-99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A & Keim, G: 2001, ‘Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line?’ Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125-139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschland, M: 2006, Corporate social responsibility and the shaping of global public policy (Palgrave Macmillan, New York).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G: 1980, Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R, Hanges, P, Javidan, M & and others: (eds) 2004, Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies, (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston, M. and S. Johnson: 2000, ‘Buyer-Supplier Contracts Versus Joint Ventures: Determinants and Consequences of Transaction Structure’, Journal of Marketing Research 37(February), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L & Bentler, P: 1995, ‘Evaluating model fit’, in Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications, ed. R Hoyle, (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L & Bentler, P: 1999, ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N & Parsa, F: 2005, ‘Corporate social responsiveness orientation: Are there differences between U.S. and French managers?’ Review of Business, 26(1), 27-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D: 2008, ‘A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: Fresh insights into theory vs practice’, Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213-231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D & Mirshak, R: 2007, ‘Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Theory and practice in a developing country context’, Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3), 243-262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M: 2002, ‘Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235-256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H: 1971, Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues (Wadsworth, Belmont).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Y. and D. Wood: 1995, ‘Before-Profit Corporate Social Responsibility: Turning the Economic Paradigm Upside-Down’, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, Vienna, Austria.

  • King, A & Lenox, M: 2001, ‘Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1), 105-116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, G: 2007, ‘Activism, risk, and communication politics: Nike and the sweatshop problem’, in The debate over corporate social responsibility, eds. S May, G Cheney & J Roper, (Oxford University Press, NY), 305-318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P & Lee, N: 2005, Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause (John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronman, A.: 1980, ‘Contract Law and Distributive Justice’, Yale Law Journal 89, 472–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M-D: 2008, ‘A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Licht, A, Goldschmidt, C & Schwartz, S: 2007, ‘Culture rules: The foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 35, 659-688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J & Castka, P: 2009, ‘Corporate social responsibility in Malaysia - Experts’ views and perspectives’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 146-154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundblad, C: 2005, ‘Some legal dimensions of corporate codes of conduct’, in Corporate social responsibility: The corporate governance of the 21st century, ed. R Mullerat, (Kluwer Law, The Hague, Netherlands).

    Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay, S.: 1963, ‘Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study’, American Sociological Review 28, 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, C. and S. Hodgson: 2005, Rewarding Virtue: Effective Board Action on Corporate Responsibility (Insight Investment, BITC, and the FTSE Group).

  • MacLean, R & Nalinakurnari, B: 2004, ‘The new rule makers: The paradigm shift in environmental, health, safety and social responsibility ‘regulations’ now underway’, International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(8), 183-198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macneil, I: 1974, ‘The many futures of contracts’, Southern California Law Review, 47, 691-816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I & Ferrell, O: 2000, ‘Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France’, Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283-297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I & Ferrell, O: 2001, ‘Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: An investigation of French businesses’, Journal of Business Research, 51(1), 37-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I, Ferrell, O & Hult, G: 1999, ‘Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27(4), 455-469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J & Walsh, J: 2003, ‘Misery loves company: Rethinking social initiatives by business’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 265-305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F: 2005, ‘Corporate social responsibility and public policy’, in Corporate social responsibility: The corporate governance of the 21st century, ed. R Mullerat, (Kluwer Law, The Hague, Netherlands).

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D & Crane, A: 2005, ‘Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization’, Academy of Management Review 30(1), 166-179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. and J. Moon: 2008, ‘Implicit and Explicit CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 33(2), 404–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J, Sundgren, A & Schneeweis, T: 1988, ‘Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854-872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey: 2006, ‘Global Survey of Business Executives’, The McKinsey Quarterly Jan, 1–10.

  • Miller, S.: 1999, ‘Social Norms and Practical Reason’, Educational Philosophy and Theory 31(3), 313–326.

  • Miller, F & Ahrens, J: 1993, ‘The social responsibility of corporations’, in Business ethics: A philosophical reader, ed. T White, (Prentice Hall,, Upper Saddle River, NJ), 187-204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R, Agle, B & Wood, D: 1997, ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts’, Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montoya-Weiss, M, Massey, A & Song, M: 2001, ‘Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251-1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D: 1999, Social psychology (McGraw-Hill, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J: 1978, Psychometric Theory 2nd edn (McGraw-Hill, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Odgen, S & Watson, R: 1999, ‘Corporate performance and stakeholder management: Balancing shareholder and customer interests in the U.K. privatized water industry’, Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 526-538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ongkrutraksa, W: 2007, ‘Green marketing and advertising’, in The debate over corporate social responsibility, eds. G Cheney, J Roper & S May, (Oxford University Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., F. Schmidt and S. Ryne: 2003, ‘Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis’, Organization Studies 24, 403–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ougaard, M: 2004, ‘The CSR movement and global governance’, in Business-social partnerships: An international perspective, ed. S Sengupta, (Aalekh Publishers, Jaipur, India).

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, D & Raiborn, C: 2001, ‘Sustainable development: The ethics support the economics’, Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 157-168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkston, T & Carroll, A: 1994, ‘Corporate citizenship perspectives and foreign direct investment in the US’, Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 157-169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkston, T & Carroll, A: 1996, ‘A retrospective examination of CSR orientations: Have they changed?’ Journal of Business Ethics, 15(2), 199-206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M & Kramer, M: 2002, ‘The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 57-68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. and M. Kramer: 2006, ‘The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business Review December, 1–15.

  • Posner, R: 1986, Economic analysis of law (Little, Brown and Company, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy, B & Yeung, M: 2009, ‘Chinese consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR)’, Journal of Business Ethics, 88(Supplement 1), 119-132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashid, M & Ibrahim, S: 2002, ‘Executive and management attitudes towards corporate social responsibility in Malaysia’, Corporate Governance, 2(4), 10-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reno, R., R. Cialdini and C. Kallgren: 1993, ‘The Transsituational Influence of Social Norms’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 104–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J.: 2003, ‘The Manufacture of Corporate Social Responsibility: Constructing Corporate Sensibility’, Organization & Environment 10, 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman, R, Hayibor, S & Agle, B: 1999, ‘The relationship between social and financial performance: Repainting a portrait’, Business & Society, 38, 109-125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T & Berman, S: 2000, ‘A Brand New Brand of Corporate Social Performance’, Business and Society, 39(4), 397-418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, P: 2005, ‘The history, variations, impact, and future of self-regulation’, in Corporate social responsibility: The corporate governance of the 21st century, ed. R Mullerat, (Kluwer Law, The Hague, Netherlands).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruf, B, Muralidhar, K, Brown, R, Janney, J & Paul, K: 2001, ‘An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 143-156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, D: 1990, Environmental offences: Corporate responsibility and executive liability (Canada Law Books, Aurora, Ontario).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnietz, K & Epstein, M: 2005, ‘Exploring the financial value of a reputation for corporate social responsibility during a crisis’, Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 327-345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeger, M & Hipfel, S: 2007, ‘Legal versus ethical arguments: Contexts for corporate social responsibility’, in The debate over corporate social responsibility, eds. G Cheney, J Roper & S May, (Oxford University Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shell, G.: 1988, ‘Substituting Ethical Standards for Common Law Rules in Commercial Cases: An Emerging Statutory Trend’, Northwestern University Law Review 82, 1198–1254.

  • Simpson, W & Kohers, T: 2002, ‘The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry’, Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 97-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A: 1776, An inquiry Into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, K & Meyer, G: 1992, ‘An integrative descriptive model of ethical decision making’, Journal of Business Ethics, 11(2), 89-94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumiani, Y, Haslinda, Y & Lehman, G: 2007, ‘Environmental reporting in a developing country: A case study on status and implementation in Malaysia’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(10), 895-901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A. and A. Inkpen: 2004, ‘The Corporate Objective Revisited’, Organization Science 15, 350–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D: 1995, ‘Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model’, Academy of Management Review, 20, 43-64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, P & Menon, A: 2008, ‘Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy’, Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, SA & Graves, S: 1997, ‘The corporate social performance-financial performance link’, Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahba, H.: 2008, ‘Does the Market Value Corporate Environmental Responsibility? An Empirical Examination’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15, 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O.: 2000, ‘The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead’, Journal of Economic Literature 38(September), 595–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, I: 2000, ‘The new rules: Ethics, social responsibility and strategy’, Strategy & Leadership, 28(3), 12-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, D: 2001, ‘The future of corporate social responsibility’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(3), 225-256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D: 1991, ‘Corporate social performance revisited’, Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D: 2010, ‘Measuring corporate social performance: A review’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50-84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. and R. Jones: 1995, ‘Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance’, International Journal of Organization Analysis 3(3), 229–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerk, J: 2006, Multinationals and corporate social responsibility (Cambridge University Press, London).

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul K. Shum.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shum, P.K., Yam, S.L. Ethics and Law: Guiding the Invisible Hand to Correct Corporate Social Responsibility Externalities. J Bus Ethics 98, 549–571 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0608-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0608-9

Keywords

Navigation