Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing CSR Giving as a Dynamic Capability for Salient Stakeholder Management

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

Abstract

In this paper, we draw upon the emerging view of strategic cognition and issue salience and show that CSR giving has evolved into more than an altruistic response to being asked for support, to one which is embedded in the strategic frames of management and which supports organizational identity. The managerial action as a result of such strategic cognition suggests that modern organizations are seeking to develop CSR giving processes that provide them with a competitive advantage. We draw on the resource-based view of organizations and the VRIO framework to provide the theoretical foundations for our argument that CSR implementation in the form of corporate giving to charities can be developed as a dynamic capability. This can provide a competitive advantage by allowing organizations to manage key stakeholder relationships (external and internal) more effectively with benefits which could lead to increased organizational productivity and the ability to execute strategy more effectively. We interview CSR implementation managers from large organizations in Australia and find that the CSR giving process in many firms is evolving into a more sophisticated and strategically motivated process with expectations of a return. Central to this evolution is the appointment of a CSR implementation manager who acts as a boundary spanner between the organization and its key stakeholders. We posit that this corporate investment in their role and supporting structures can lead to the better management of stakeholders by organizations through the dynamic capability of the CSR giving process. We develop a table of best practise to help guide managers entering this sphere.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABS. (2002). 8157.0 Generosity of Australian Businesses [Online]. Retrieved April 7th 2013 from:http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/FD2DB957480CA60FCA256C2100076CB7?Open.

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 314–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, R. A. R., Tower, G., & Van Der Zahn, M. (2010). Communication of corporate philanthropy. 2010 AFAANZ Conference. Christchurch, New Zealand: Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand.

  • Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005), 9(4), 49–61.

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing Better at Doing Good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, D., & Littlewood, G. (2004). Corporate citizenship: Some perspectives from Australian CEOs. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 16, 61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing social research: the logic of anticipation. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2004). Stakeholder pressure, organizational size, and the allocation of departmental responsibility for the management of corporate charitable giving. Business and Society, 43, 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1701–1719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Pavelin, S., & Porter, L. A. (2009). Corporate charitable giving, multinational companies and countries of concern. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 575–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29, 495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., Moore, G., & Metzger, M. (2002). Corporate philanthropy in the U.K. 1985–2000: Some empirical findings. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell, J., Kyriazis, E., Noble, G., & Algie, J. (2008). Towards NPOs deeper understanding of the corporate giving manager’s role in meeting salient stakeholders needs. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20, 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1993). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati, Ohio: College Division, South-Western Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2000). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. C., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. (2008). Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among the five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 731–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (2005). Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1), 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G. (2000). Individual and group interviewing. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenley, G. E., Hooley, G. J., Broderick, A. J., & Rudd, J. M. (2004). Strategic planning differences among different multiple stakeholder orientation profiles. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 12, 163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (2001). Handbook of constructionist research. London: Guildford Pres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmig, B., Spraul, K., Ingenhoff, D. (2013). Under positive pressure: how stakeholder pressure affects corporate social responsibility implementation. Business & Society. Published online before print March 4, 2013, doi:10.1177/0007650313477841 Business Society March 4, 2013 0007650313477841.

  • Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. The Journal of Management Studies, 29, 131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (2013). ISO 26000 - Social responsibility. Retrieved October 13, 2013 from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm.

  • Kanter, R. (1999). From spare change to real change. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 122–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J. C., & Groen, A. J. (2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36, 349–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzel, A. J. (1999). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, C.-S., Chiu, C.-J., Yang, C.-F., & Pai, D.-C. (2010). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 457–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Johnston, W. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation of U.S. organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 303–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maas, K., & Liket, K. (2011). Talk the walk: Measuring the impact of strategic philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2008). Thinking of the organization as a system: The role of managerial perceptions in developing a corporate social responsibility strategic agenda. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(3), 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages and cultural phases: A critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, D. T., & Ferrell, L. (2002). The role of strategic philanthropy in marketing strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 36, 689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McManus, J. (2002). The influence of stakeholder values on project management. Management Services, 46(8), 9.

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middlemiss, N. (2003). Authentic not cosmetic: CSR as brand enhancement. Journal of Brand Management, 10(4/5), 353–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 590–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12, 237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Morimoto, R., Ash, J., & Hope, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility audit: From theory to practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4), 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munilla, L. S., & Miles, M. P. (2005). The corporate social responsibility continuum as a component of stakeholder theory. Business and Society Review, 110, 371–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, B., Maguiness, P., Pescott, C., & Wislang, S. (2005). Stakeholder perceptions presage holistic stakeholder relationship marketing performance. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 1049–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? The Journal of Business, 61(1), 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B., Bell, S. J., & Whitwell, G. (2011). Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 745–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. W. (2000). Sustainable competitive advantage? The Journal of Business Strategy, 21(6), 7–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J. L., & Falkenberg, L. (2009). The role of collaboration in achieving corporate social responsibility objectives. California Management Review, 51(3), 95–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J. L., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H, Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York, Sydney: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(2), 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T. (2013). Strategic management: Concepts. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S&P, Standard and Poor’s Financial Services LLC. (2013). S&P/ASX200 [Online]. New York, NY. Retrieved March 20th 2014 from http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-asx-200/en/us/?indexId=spausta200audff--p-au---.

  • Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “Begins at Home”. Business and Society, 42, 169–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Crissman, K. (2006). Corporate giving in Australia: An analysis of motives and barriers. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41, 477–492.

  • Schnietz, K. E., & Epstein, M. J. (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 

  • Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. (1994). Changing institutional roles: The evolution of corporate philanthropy, 1883–1953. Business and Society, 33, 236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. (2009). Bounded goodness: Marketing implications of Drucker on corporate responsibility. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. V., & Bartunek, J. M. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral CSR from the perspective of CSR professionals. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 338–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, D. M., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2011). Business and society: A strategic approach to social responsibility and ethics. Mason: Ohio South-Western Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). Too good to be true! The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. M., & Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, D., & Lancaster, G. (2000). Implementing value strategy through the value chain. Management Decision, 38(3), 160–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. P., Paroutis, S. E., & Blettner, D. P. (2013). How useful are the strategic tools we teach in business schools? Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 92–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    John Ehsman Cantrell, Elias Kyriazis & Gary Noble

Authors
  1. John Ehsman Cantrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elias Kyriazis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary Noble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Ehsman Cantrell.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 1, 2 and 3.

Table 1 General information on the respondent companies in this research
Full size table
Table 2 Evolution of CSR to being a dynamic capability
Full size table
Table 3 Table of abbreviations and explanations
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cantrell, J.E., Kyriazis, E. & Noble, G. Developing CSR Giving as a Dynamic Capability for Salient Stakeholder Management. J Bus Ethics 130, 403–421 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2229-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2229-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation