Ewolucyjne modele CSR - przegląd koncepcji rozwoju społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu

• Autorzy: Anna Witek-Crabb

Warianty tytułu

Evolutionary Stage Models of Corporate Social Responsibility - Theory Review

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Na przestrzeni 40 lat ewoluowały modelowe ujęcia tego, w jaki sposób przedsiębiorstwa powinny doskonalić swoje praktyki CSR. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest przegląd i uporządkowanie teorii na temat ewolucyjnych modeli CSR i przedstawienie w sposób syntetyczny najważniejszego dorobku z tego zakresu. W wyniku krytycznej analizy literatury wprowadzono podział na dwie grupy modeli, opierających się na różnych paradygmatach. Pierwsza to ewolucyjne modele CSR ukierunkowane na realizowanie wartości moralnych. W tej grupie wraz z doskonaleniem CSR następuje progresja ku działaniom motywowanym moralnie i altruistycznie. Druga grupa to ewolucyjne modele CSR ukierunkowane na tworzenie wartości ekonomicznej. W tej grupie natomiast doskonalenie CSR odbywa się na drodze zwiększania efektywności i profesjonalizmu, co w efekcie powinno prowadzić do tworzenia ekonomicznej wartości dodanej dla interesariuszy. Poszukiwano także możliwości syntezy tych dwóch grup modeli(abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

Over the past 40 years there have been multiple definitions of CSR being developed and one could observe an evolution of models describing how CSR should be practiced and improved. The analysis of different evolutionary CSR concepts leads to the conclusion that there are a lot of contradictions between different CSR stage models. The goal of this article is to review a theory of the evolutionary CSR models. As a result of critical literature analysis a models typology was proposed. The evolutionary models were divided into (1) CSR models oriented on moral value realisation and (2) CSR models oriented on economic value creation. In the former the company progresses through the model by becoming more altruistic and morally oriented. In the latter the company improves its CSR by acting more effectively and profesionally, which leads to a higher added value for all the stakeholders. A synthesis of the two groups was also sought(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu; Teoria ewolucyjna w ekonomii; Wartość ekonomiczna; Rozwój

EN

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); Evolutionary theory in economics; Economic value; Development

• Czasopismo: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu
• Rocznik: 2016
• Numer: nr 444 Zarządzanie strategiczne w teorii i praktyce
• Strony: 541--558

Twórcy

autor

Anna Witek-Crabb

• Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu

Bibliografia

• Baumgartner R.J., Ebner D., 2010, Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels, Sustainable Development, vol. 18, issue 2, March/ April, s. 76-89.
• Beck D., Cowan C., 1996, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering values, leadership and change, Wiley-Blackwell.
• Carroll A.B., 1979, A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 4, no. 4, s. 497-505.
• Carroll A.B., 1991, The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders, Business Horizons, vol. 34, no. 4, s. 39-48.
• Dahlsrud A., 2008, How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 15, issue. 1, Jan-Feb., s. 1-13.
• de Woot P., 2005, Should Prometheus be Bound, Palgrave Macmillan.
• Frederick W.C., 1978, From CSR1 to CSR2: the maturing of business and society thought, Working Paper, no. 279, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh (ponownie wydrukowane w: 1994, Business & Society, vol. 33, no. 2, s. 150-164).
• Frederick W.C., 1986, Toward CSR3: Why ethical analysis is indispensable and avoidable in ethical affairs, California Management Review, vol. 28, no. 2, s. 12-25.
• Frederick W.C., 1998, Moving to CSR4, Business & Society Review, vol. 37, no. 1, s. 40-59.
• Frooman J., 1997, Socially Irresponsible and Illegal Behavior and Shareholder Wealth, A Meta-Analysis of Event Studies, Business & Society, vol. 36, no. 3, s. 221-249.
• Garriga E., Mele D., 2004, Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 53, issue 1, s. 51-71.
• Graves C.W., 1974, Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap, The Futurist, April, s. 72-87.
• Griffin J.J., Mahon J.F., 1997, The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate. Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research, Business & Society, vol. 36, no. 1, s. 5-31.
• Halme M., Laurila J., 2009, Philanthropy, Integration or Innovation? Exploring the Financial and Societal Outcomes of Different Types of Corporate Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 84, issue 3, s. 325-339.
• Hillman A.J., Keim G.D., 2001, Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What's the Bottom Line?, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, s. 125-139.
• Humphrey W.S., 1990, Managing the Software Process,. Boston: Addison Wesley, Boston.
• Husted B.W., Salazar J.J., 2006, Taking Friedman Seriously: Maximizing Profits and Social Performance, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, issue 1, s. 75-91.
• Jones T.M., Felps W., Bigley G., 2007, Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 1, s. 137-155.
• Key S., Popkin S.J., 1998, Integrating ethics into the strategic management process: doing well by doing good, Management Decision, vol. 36, issue 5, s. 331-338.
• Kolk A., Mauser A., 2002, The evolution of environmental management: from stage models to performance evaluation, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 11, issue 1, s. 14-31.
• 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, vol. 12, issue 1, s. 20-38.
• Martinuzzi A., Krumay B., 2013, The Good, the Bad, and the Successful - How Corporate Social Responsibility Leads to Competitive Advantage and Organizational Transformation, Journal of Change Management, vol. 13, issue 4, s. 424-443.
• McWilliams A., Siegel D., 2001, Corporate Social Responsibility: a Theory of the Firm Perspective, Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, no. 1, s. 117-127.
• McWilliams A., Siegel D., Wright P.M., 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, issue 1, s. 1-18.
• Mele D., Guillen M., 2006, The Intellectual Evolution of Strategic Management and its Relationship with Ethics and Social Responsibility, IESE Business School Working Paper, no. 658.
• Mirvis P., Googins B., 2006, Stages of Corporate Citizenship, California Management Review, vol. 48, no. 2, s. 104-126.
• 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, Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, no. 4, s. 853-886.
• Mosakowski P., Spiral dynamics - koncepcja wyjaśniająca wszystko, http://nf.pl/manager/spiral-dynamics-koncepcja-wyjasniajaca-wszystko,,43197,38 (10.04.2016).
• Persse J.R., 2001, Implementing the Capability Maturity Model, Wiley Computer Publishing, New York.
• Pinkston T.S., Carroll A.B., 1996, A retrospective examination of CSR orientations: Have they changed?, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 15, no. 2, s. 199-206.
• Porter M.E., Kramer M.R., 2002, The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, Dec., s. 56-68.
• Porter M.E., Kramer M.R., 2006, Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no. 12, s. 78-92.
• Porter M.E., Kramer M.R., 2011, Creating Shared Value, Harvard Business Review, vol. 89, no. 2, s. 62-77.
• Prahalad C.K., Hammond A., 2002, Serving the World's Poor, Profitably, Harvard Business Review, vol. 80, no. 9, s. 48-57.
• Surroca J., Tribo J.A., Waddock S., 2010, Corporate responsibility and financial performance: the role of intangible resources, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 31, issue 5, s. 463-490.
• van Marrewijk M., Werre M., 2003, Multiple Levels of Corporate Sustainability, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 44, issue 2, s. 107-119.
• Visser W., 2012, The Future of CSR: Towards Transformative CSR, or CSR 2.0, Kaleidoscope Futures Paper Series, no. 1
• Visser W., 2014, CSR 2.0. - Transforming Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Springer.
• Waddock S.A., Graves S.B., 1997, The Corporate Social Performance - Financial Performance Link, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 4, s. 303-319.
• Wilber K., 2000, A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality, Shambhala Publications Inc., Boston.
• Wilson I.H., 1975, What one company is doing about today's demands on business, [w:] Steiner G.A. (red.), Changing business-society interrelationship, Los Angeles Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
• Windsor D., 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Key Approaches, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, issue 1, s. 93-114.
• Zadek S., 2004, The Path to Corporate Responsibility, Harvard Business Review, vol. 82, no. 12, s. 125-132

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15611/pn.2016.444.48