Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An ... and Ferrell.pdfCorporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework Isabelle Maignan Vrije Universiteit Amslerdatn,

Corporate Social Responsibility andMarketing: An Integrative Framework

Isabelle MaignanVrije Universiteit Amslerdatn, the Netherlands

O. C. FerrellColorado State University'

This article introduces a conceptualization of corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) that emphasizes the role andpotential contribution of the marketitig discipline. Theproposedfraineworkfirst depicts CSR initiatives as the ac-tions undertaken to display conformity to both organiza-tional and stakeholder norms. Then, the article discussesthe tnanagerial processes needed to monitor, meet, andeven exceed, stakeholder norms. Finally, the analysis ex-plains how CSR initiatives can generate increased stake-holder support.

Keywords: stakeholder the:bility; tnarket o

1'," corporate ,;ntation; ethi-

cial Iîspom

Tbe past few years bave witnessed the simultaneousdevelopment ofthe antiglobalization movement, of share-bolder activism, and of corporate governance reform. Tbistrend bas cultivated a climate of defiance toward busi-nesses, a climate tbat bas only been exemplified by recentaccounting scandals. Perbaps in response to tbis growingsuspicion, some leading companies have openly profiledthemselves as socially responsible. For instance, BritisbPetroleum underlined its commitment to natural environ-ment by cbanging its name to Beyond Petroleum. Simi-larly, Nike advertises its commitment to adopting

Joumai or Ihe Academy or Marketing Science.Volume 32. No. 1. pages 3-19.DOI: 10.1177/0092070303258971Copyright © 2004 by Academy or Marketing Science.

responsible business practices tbat contribute to profitableand sustainable growth" (www.nike.com). and Coca-Colabas moved to expense stock options for top managementas a part ol its commitment to responsible governance.

Tbis entbusiasm for corporate social responsibility(CSR) bas been echoed in the marketing literature. In par-ticular, scholars have examined consumer responses toCSR initiatives (e.g,. Brown and Dacin 1997; Sen andBhattacbarya 2001), the perceived importance of etbicsand social responsibility among marketing practitioners(e.g., Singbapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli, and Kraft 1996),along witb tbe marketing benefits resulting from corporateactions witb a social dimension (e.g., Maignan, Ferrell,and Huit 1999). Studies have also focused on specificdimensions of CSR sucb as tbe support of cbaritablecauses (e.g., Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor 2000) or tbeprotection of the environment (e.g., Drumwright 1994;Menon and Menon 1997). The differentiated terminologyand focuses chosen across past studies render difficulttbeir integration into a consistent body of marketingknowledge about CSR. In an attempt to unite this develop-ing body of research, the present article introduces a con-ceptual framework tbat provides an encompassing view ofCSR along witb its antecedents and outcomes. The pro-posed framework suggests that marketers can contributeto the successful management of CSR by expanding tbeirfocus beyond consumers to include otber stakeholders andby bundling together various social responsibility initia-tives. Tbe proposed framework accounts for the maindepictions of CSR found in ibe literature, wbicb arepresented below.

4 JOURNAL OFTHE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCtENCE

STUDY BACKGROUND

Past Conceptualizations of CSR:A Brief Overview

Since the 1950s, CSR (e.g., Bowen iy53l along withthe related notions of corporate social responsiveness, cor-porate sociai responses (e.g.. Strand 1983), and corporatesocial performance (e.g., Carroll 1979; Wood 1991 ), havebeen the subject of many conceptualizations originatingmainly from the management literature. This section out-lines the main conceptual viewpoints that emerge out ofthis profuse literature.

CSR as social obligation. This first petspective waslaunched by Bowen (1953), who defmed CSR as the obli-gation "to pursue those policies, to make those decisions,or to follow tliose lines of action which are desirable interms of the objectives and values of our society" (p. 6).The view of CSR as a social obligation has been advocatedin later conceptualizations (e.g., Carroll 1979) and con-temporary marketing studies (e.g.. Brown and Dacin1997; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). As emphasized byCarroll (1979), different types of social obligations can bedistinguished: (a) economic obligations (be productiveand economically viable), (b) legal and ethical obligations(follow the law and acknowledged values and norms), and(c) philanthropic obligations (proactively give back tosociety).

CSR as stakeholder obligation. Starting in the mid-1990s, a number of scholars have contended that the no-tion of social obligation is too broad to facilitate the effec-tive management of CSR. In particular, as stated byClarkson (1995), society is at "a level of analysis that isboth more inclusive, more ambiguous and further the lad-der of abstraction than a corporation itself (p. 102),Ctarkson (1995) and other scholars (e.g,, Donaldson andPreston 1995; Jones 1995; Wood and Jones 1995) arguethat businesses are not responsible toward society as awhole but only toward those who directly or indirectly af-fect or are affected by the firm's activities. These differentactors are called stakeholders and can he regrouped in fourmain categories (Henriques and Sadorsky 1999); (a) orga-nizational (e.g., employees, customers, shareholders, sup-pliers), (b) community (e.g., local residents, specialinterest groups), (c) regulatory (e.g., municipalities,regulatory systems), and (d) media stakeholders.

CSR as ethics driven. The views of CSR as either a so-cial or a stakeholder obligation imply that CSR practicesare motivated by self-interest; they enable businesses togain legitimacy among their constituents. Swanson ( 1995 )regrets thai such approaches fail to account for a "positivecommitment to society thai disregards self-interest andconsequences" (p. 48). In addition, the view of CSR as an

obligation fails to provide normative criteria to evaluatethe extent to which actual business practices can or cannotbe considered as socially responsible (Jones 1995). Withphilanthropic donations or employee-friendly policies, afirm may jusi conform to social norms; yet, these initia-tives may also be "a paternalistic expression of corporatepower" (Swanson 1995:50). Based on these criticisms,some scholars advocate an ethics-driven view of CSR thatasserts the rightness or wrongness of specific corporate ac-tivities independently of any social or stakeholder obliga-tion (e.g., Donaldson and Preston 1995; Swanson 1995).For example, following justice-based ethics, a companycould attempt to systematically favor decisions andprocedures that stimulate equality, liberty, and fairness ofopportunity for its various partners and associates.

CSR as tnanagerial processes. The three perspectivesintroduced thus far essentially characterize the factors in-ducing businesses to commit to CSR. In contrast, a num-ber of authors have depicted CSR in terms of concreteorganizational processes often analyzed under the label ofcorporate social responsiveness. For example, Ackerman( 1975) outlined three main activities representative of cor-porate social responsiveness; (a) monitoring and assessingenvironmental conditions, (b) attending to stakeholder de-mands, and (c) designing plans and policies aimed at en-hancing the firm's positive impacts. Similarly, Wanickand Cochran (1985), along with Wood (I99I), suggestedthat issues management and environmental assessmentconstitute two sets of managerial processes useful toachieve a proactive social responsibility stance.

Given the variety of the viewpoints outlined above, it isevident that no single conceptualization of CSR has domi-nated past research. The comparison and integration ofpast definitions is especially difficult hecause scholarshave considered the social responsibilities of differentconceptual entities, including (a) businesses in general (b)the individual firm, and (c) the decision maker (Wood1991 ). In addition, while some researchers have examinedCSR from a normative standpoint (with a concern for theduties of businesses in general toward society as a whole),others have favored a more managerial approach (how canan individual firm successfully manage CSR?) or aninstrumental perspective (how can CSR generateorganizational beneñl.^.'l.

CSR in the Marketing Literature

Within the marketing literature, much fragmentationcan be observed in terms of the unit of analysis consideredand the dimensions of social responsibility investigated.When marketing scholars started expressing concern forcorporate social responsibilities in the 1960s and 1970s,they focused on the social duties attached to the marketingfunction and not on the overall social role of the furo (e.g.,

Maií:nan,Ferrell/CSR 5

Kotler and Levy 1969; Lazer 1969 ). As a result, the field ofsocial marketing has emerged and has specialized in thecontribution of marketing activities to socially desirablebehaviors and goals ( Andreasen 1994), Similarly, the mar-keting literature has developed much knowledge on theethical perceptions, reasoning, and decision-making pro-cess ofmarketing managers (e,g., Blodgett, Lu, Rose, andVitell 2001; Ferrell and Gresham 1985: Goolsby and Hunt1992) and has allocated little attention to the ethicalresponsibilities of the firm as a whole. Overall, past studieshave rarely considered how tnarketing thinking and prac-tices can contribute to the development of sociallyresponsible practices throughout the organization.

In addition, when marketing scholars investigate CSR,they have a tendency to focus on very Hmited dimensionsof this construct. For example, marketing has developedexpertise on cause-related marketing (e.g,, Barone et al,2000) and environmental marketing (e,g., Drumwright1994; Menon and Menon 1997) but has established littleconnection between these two research areas. When mar-keting scholars have examined consumers' responses toCSR (e,g„ Brown and Dacin 1997; Handelman andAmold 1999; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001), they haverelied on simplified indicators of CSR and have consid-ered only limited dimensions of this construct. This frag-mented view is certainly linked to the scarcity of compre-hensive conceptual frameworks originating from themarketing discipline.

In sharp contrast with the abundant management litera-ture, theoretical investigations of CSR in marketing havebeen scarce (for an exception see Robin and Reidenbach1987) and focused on limited dimensions of CSR such asenvironmental marketing (e.g., Menon and Menon 1997)or cause-related marketing (Varadarajan and Menon1988). As a result, past studies have not yielded an encom-passing view of CSR that enables the coordination of vari-ous social responsibility initiatives. It is noteworthy thatmarketing scholars have focused on corporate responsibil-ities toward two main groups of stakeholders; customersand channel members. As suggested by managementscholars themselves (Griffin 2000; McWilliams andSiegel 2001), this knowledge can certainly help under-stand the nature of responsible corporate behaviors towardother stakeholders.

Building on this suggestion, the discussion below intro-duces a conceptualization of CSR that emphasizes thepotential contribution of marketing expertise to tbe studyof CSR, This conceptualization establishes bridgesbetween different silos of knowledge that have emerged inthe management and marketing literature, respectively. Inparticular, the conceptualization considers (a) differenttypes of social responsibility initiatives (e.g., environmen-tal practices, support of charities, ethics management); (b)various stakeholder groups; and (c) the normative, mana-gerial, and instrumental dimensions of CSR. In

accordance with contemporaiy descriptions of CSR (e,g.,Maignan and Ralston 2002; McWilliams and Siegel2001), we embed our conceptualization within thestakeholder view of the firm.

A STAKEHOLDER VIEW OF CSR

Depicting the Firm

I beAccording to stakeholder theory, the fviewed as a nexus of actors—or stakeholders—who aremotivated to participate in organizational activities by var-ious and sometimes incongruent interests (Donaldson andPreston 1995). Some of these stakeholders (e.g,, employ-ees, managers) are involved directly in coordinating andperforming productive activities. Some other stakeholders(e.g,. investors, strategic partners) provide only indirect orpartial support for organizational activities, A third type ofstakeholders operates at the boundaries of the abstractentity tbat makes up the firm and includes a variety ofactors who encounter the organization for a variety of rea-sons, The,se other stakeholders include customers, regula-tors, pressure groups, and local residents. Overall, stake-holder theory describes a business as an open and flexiblesystem made up of diverse actors and active in a networkof relationships with various other actors.

Depicting CSR

Stakeholder theory posits thai the behavior of an orga-nisation can be understood and predicted based on (a) thenature of its diverse stakeholders, (b) the norms definingright or wrong adopted by these stakeholders, and (c)stakeholders' relative influence on organizational deci-sions. These premises have received empirical support(Agle, Mitchell, and Sonnenfeld 1999; Berman, Wicks,Kotha, and Jones 1999) and are motivated by two mainjustifications. The first one is instrumental; since the orga-nization depends on stakeholders for the supply of neededresources, it has to gain their continued support, for exam-pie, by conforming to their norms defining appropriatebehavior. The second justification is moral; as advocatedby Donaldson and Preston (1995), ">\//persons or groupswith legitimate interests participating in an enterprise doso to obtain benefits and [.., ] there is no prima facie prior-ity of one set of interests or benefits over another" (p, 68).The stakeholder perspective implies that a business acts ina socially responsible manner when its decisions andactions account for, and balance, diverse stakeholder inter-ests. Subsequently, we suggest that CSR designates theduty (motivated bv both instrumental and moral argu-niL'nls) lo meet or exceed stakeholder norms dictatingdtwirahle organizational behaviors.

6 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

Depicting the Role of Managers

Managers arc in a unique position: ihey arc both astakeholder group and in charge of coordinating organiza-tional relationships with all other stakeholders. Scholarshave identified two main roles played by managers. Thefirst one consists of safeguarding the welfare of theabstract entity that is the corporation, which requires thebalancing of conflicting stakeholder claims (Hill andJones 1992). The second role is mainly moral: "Managersshould acknowledge the validity of diverse stakeholderinterests and should attempt to respond to them within amutually supportive framework" (Donaldson and Preston1995:87). However, the capacity of managers to enactthese two assigned roles successfully is likely to be com-promised by their propensity to practice opportunism andself-aggrandizing behavior (Williamson 1985), Like allother stakeholders, managers hold, and are likely to advo-cate, dieir own specific norms defining what is responsibleor irresponsible business behavior. The only barrier tomanagers' self-serving tendencies is the board of directorsthat is responsible for the oversight of all corporatedecisions.

On the basis of this description of the firm and its man-agers, we argue that organizations act in a socially respon-sible manner when they align their behaviors with thetioiins atid demands embraced by their main stakeholders(including their managers). The conceptual framework wepropose investigates the factors conducive to sociallyresponsible corporate behaviors (see Figure 1). Thisframework is meaningful at the level of the strategic busi-ness unit: the nature of relevant stakeholders and of busi-ness activities may vary greatly from one business unit tothe next. In a first step, our conceptual framework consid-ers the normative underpinnings of CSR and examineshow stakeholder norms emerge and infiuence corporatebehaviors (Propositions 1 to4and7to 8c in Figure l) .Inasecond step, adopting a managerial perspective, the frame-work outlines some organizational practices conducive tosocially responsible corporate behaviors (Propositions 5and 6). Finally, in accordance with the instrumental viewof CSR, the framework surveys some of the benefits thatmay result from socially responsible business behaviors(Propositions 9 to lie).

CSR: NORMATIVE UNDERPINNINGS

As previously mentioned. CSR represents the duty tomeet or exceed stakeholder norms defining desirable busi-ness behaviors. This section explores the nature of stake-holder norms along with the conditions that favor theirintegration into business practices.

Stakeholder Norms

We depict stakeholder norms based on integrativesocial contract iheory (ISCT) (Donaldson and Dunfee1994). a framework previously employed in the marketingliterature (e,g,. Dunfee. Smith, and Ross 1999) and partic-ularly appropriate to analyze conflicting norms among dif-ferent groups, ISCT posits the existence of two types ofsocial contracts and a.ssociated norms that dictate thenature of appropriate business behaviors. The first is ahypothetical macro social contract among all economicparticipants. This general contract entails broad normscalled hypernorms that outline a small set of universalprinciples defining which behaviors are morally right orwrong (Dunfee et al, 1999), Frederick (1991) identified aseries of normative corporate principles that could beregarded as hypernorms based on the analysis of six inter-governmental guidelines (e.g.. the "OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises"). One of these principles statesthat businesses "should adopt adequate health and safetystandards for employees and grant them the right to knowaboutjob-related health hazards" (Prederick 1991:166).

According to ISCT, this first macro social contract pro-vides the normative ground rtiles for a second type ofimplicit contract that occurs among members of specificcommunities (Donaldson and Dunfee 1994, cf. p. 254). Acommunity is a web of intertwined relationships among agroup of individuáis, which are based on shared beliefs,history, and identity (Etzioni 2000. cf, pp. 222-223). Stra-

are examples of communities that are likely to embrace agiven set of norms defining appropriate behaviors(Donaldson and Dunfee 1994). These different communi-ties may hold highly diverging norms. Yet. according toISCT, to be viable, community norms must be in agree-ment with broad hypernorms (Dunfee et al. 1999),

Stakeholder conwmnities. We suggest that individualstakeholders may also be regrouped around communities.Following Euioni ( 1996.2000). a stakeholder communityis defmed as a group of individual stakeholders who (a) in-teract with one another and (b) share common norms andgoals with respect to a given issue. For example, some in-vestors choose to become members of activist groups suchas "Equality Project," a shareholder association battlingagainst gender discrimination in businesses. Active com-munities can also be found among employees (e.g.. the In-ternational Textile Garment and Leather Workers'Federation), consumers (e,g.. the Council on Size andWeight Discrimination), suppliers (e.g.. Aviation Suppli-ers Association), competitors (e.g., American Apparel andFootwear Association), local residents (e.g.. the NatureFunds), and the media (e,g.. Television Directors Associa-tion), These various groups have established their own

Maignan.Eerrell/CSR 7

FIGURE 1Likely Antecedents and Outcomes of Socially Responsible Corporate Behaviors

INCREASED~AKEHOLDER

>URCES

ORGANIZATIONALIMPACTS ON

STAKEHOLDER ISSLTZ I

NOTE: CSR = corporati

guidelines defining responsible business behaviors on is-sues such as working conditions, consumer rights,environmental protection, product safety, or properinformation disclosure.

Stakeholder norms. Therefore, in accordance withISCT's notion of community norms, we introduce stake-holder norms as the common set of rules and behavioralexpectations shared by the majority of the members of astakeholder community. Noticeably, individual stake-holders may share and abide by common norms even whenthey are not regrouped in a formal organization. For in-stance, customers do not need to be members of any spe-cific environmental defense group to show concem for theenvironmental impact of business activities, to discuss thisissue among themselves, and to enact their concerns intheir purchasing decisions.

Organizational norms. ISCT also views an individualfirm as a community embracing its own set of norms.These organizational norms certainly overlap with, are in-fiuenced by, and influence, the noiTns of the stakeholder

communities that interact with the firm. In particular,much overlap can be expected between the norms of theorganization and those of employees, managers, andfounders, respectively. However, given that these threegroups may hold confiicting expectations, organizationsdefine their own norms dictating which behaviors are de-sirable or not. As suggested by the literature on organiza-tional identity (e.g., Whetten and Godfrey 1998), theseorganizational norms are often a heritage of strong found-

"s (e,g,, Milton Hershey, Robert Wood Johnson) and areiated by their followers. They are usually

1 official documents such as missionarporate autobiographies, and codes of

refully

statements, iconduct.

Stakeholder Issues

Stakeholders show concern not only for issues thataffect their own welfaj-e (e.g,, consumers calling forimproved product safety) but also for issues that do notaffect them directly (e,g,, consumers condemning childlabor). Accordingly, we define stakeholder issues broadly.

8 JOURNAL OFTHE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

as ibe corporate activities and effects tbereof tbat are ofconcern to one or more stakebolder communities. Exam-ples of stakebolder issues include occupational health andsafely, Ibe transparency of financial information, andindustrial pollution. Tbe evaluation of an organization'simpact on tbese respective issues could include injury andabsentee rates, transparency ratings provided by institu-tional investors, and data on annual waste produced.

We suggest thai an organization's commitment tosocial responsibility can be assessed by scrutinizing itsimpact on ibe issues of concern to its stakeboldeis. Asillustrated in Figure 1, tbis evaluation is issue specific:while a given business may bave a positive impact on onestakebolder issue, it may concurrently bave a negativeimpact on another stakebolder issue. For example, wbileLevi Strauss bas been applauded for its leadersbip iaddressing the child labor issue, it has been blamed for i"inability to offer job security. Tbe evaluation of an organzation's commitment to CSR is all tbe more difficubecause different stakebolder communities favor cont1._ing norms. One specific corporate decision can botb pos.tively affect an issue advocated by one stakebolder com-munity and negatively affect an issue dear to anotberstakeholder community. For instance, wben Disney Inc.extended benefits to employees' gay partners, the com-pany satisfied a major demand of some communities advo-cating gay rigbts. However, tbis decision angered somereligious communities wbo believe tbat businesses shouldnot support bomosexuality. Accordingly, tbe evaluation ofbusinesses' commitment to CSR is dependent botb on tbestakebolder issues and tbe stakebolder communitiesconsidered.

Stakeholder Power as anAntecedent of Corporate Impacts

According to ISCT. divergmg community norms maycoexist as long as tbey conform to hypernorms. In addi-tion, given tbat businesses have tbeir own norms definingappropriate business bebaviors, one may wonder wby tbeywould won-y about stakebolder norms and issues. As indi-cated by Frooman (1999), along witb Jawabar andMcLaugblin (2001), resource-dependence tbeory (Pfefferand Salancik 1978) suggests an answer to tbis question.Resource-dependence tbeory states tbat "an organizationmust attend lo tbe demands of tbose in its environment tbatprovide resources necessary and important for its contin-ued survival" (Pfeffer 1982:193). Eacb stakeholder com-munity provides material or inunaterial resources that :u-emore or less critical to tbe fu-m's long-term sticcess (HillandJones 1992. cf. p. 133).Forexample,stockbolderscanbring in capital; suppliers can give access to materialresources or immaterial knowledge; local communitiescan offer infrastructure and a location; employees andmanagers can grant expertise, leadersbip, and loyalty;

customers can provide loyalty and positive word oí" moutb;and the media can help spread positive corporate image.*..

Tbe ability of stakebolder communities to withdrawneeded organizational resources gives them power over tbeorgiinization. In accordance witb the resource-dependenceframework, power is defined in relative terms: a stake-bolder community has power over a focal organization iftbe organization is more dependent on the stakeboldercommunity relative to the community's dependence ontbe organization (Frooman 1999; Pfeffer and Salancik1978). Wben corporate impacts on specific issues violatestakebolder norms witb respect to these issues, stake-bolder communities might make use of their power tobring about cbanges in corporate bebavior. Hill andJones (1992) outlined tbree main strategies tbat are com-monly used by stakebolder communities to advocate anissue:

1. Witb legalistic approaches, stakebolders antag-onize corporate practices witb tbe letter of tbelaw. For example, on several occasions duringtbe 1990s, minority customers filed lawsuitsagainst Waffie House because tbey were refusedservice,

2. Witb exit strategies, stakebolders withbold ortbreaten to withhold resources if the ftrm fails toaddress a specific issue. For instance. FranklinResearcb (etbical investments fund) bas threat-ened to witbdraw its investments from furms tbatdo not include buman rigbts in tbeir corporateetbics practices ("Saints ^ d Sinners" 1995).

3. With voice strategies, a stakebolder communityattempts to stimulate awareness and actionamong otber powerful stakebolder communi-ties. For instance, environmental defense groupsorganized protests outside of Staples stores,whicb allowed tbem to gain tbe interest and sup-port of the media, consumer advocates, and thebroad customer base of tbe retailer (Truini2001).

Witb sucb actions, stakebolder communities sbow tbattbey bave tbe resources to inñuence corporate activities.As tbe ability of stakebolder communities to witbbold vi-tal organizational resources increases, so does tbe propen-sity of tbe firm to conform to tbe community normsdefining appropriate bebaviors. Therefore, businesses canbe expected to sbow diligence to the issues of concern topowerful stakebolder communities in order to ascertaintheir continued cooperation. Tbe relationsbip betweenstakeholder power and responsible corporate bebavior i,sillustrated in Figure 1 and summarized in tbe followingproposition:

Proposition I: Tbe more powerful a stakebolder commu-nity, tbe more positive the impact of the focal organi-zation on tbe issue(s) of concern to tbat community.

Maienun.Ferrell/CSR 9

Stakeholders' Ability to Cooperate asan Antecedent of Corporate Impacts

Stakeholder communities can use their own power toadvocate responsible corporate behaviors. They can alsojoin forces with other stakeholder communities thai areable to withhold resources away from the tirm. For exam-ple, in their fight against Nike's child lahor practices in the199as, student activists relied on the media to voice theirconcerns and to earn the crucial support of consumers.Therefore, businesses' likelihood to act on a given stake-holder issue increases when dilTerenl stakeholder commu-nities can cooperate to advocate that issue. We suggest thatstakeholders' ability to cooperate can be evaluated by con-sidering (a) the degree of convergence of stakeholdernorms, (b) the density of the network of stakeholders, and(c) the centrality of the organization in the network ofstakeholders.

Convergetice of stakeholder tionns. Stakeholder ac-tions against a certain set of corporate behaviors often failbecause of conflicting stakeholder norms. For instance, anumber of environmental defense groups have advocatedstricter standards for pesticides such as those produced byBASF. Nevertheless, their advocacy has remained fruitlessmainly because other groups concerned about economicdevelopment view enhanced environmental standards as away to exclude poor countries from substantial markets.As illustrated in this example, the collaboration betweenstakeholder communities requires normative conver-gence; these communities must share common norms de-fining desirable corporate behaviors and impacts.Accordingly, the following proposition is advanced:

Proposition 2: The greater the convergence of normswith respect to an issue across different stakeholdercommunities, the more positive the impact of the fo-cal organization on this issue.

Density of the network of stakeholders. Different stake-holder communities are more likely to collaborate if theycan easily access one another, exchange viewpoints, andinteract. Rowley ( 1997) captured this idea with the con-cept of density of a stakeholder's network. On the basis ofnetwork theory (Wasserman and Galaskiewicz 1994),Rowley (1997) defined density as the relative number ofties in a network that link stakeholders together. As thedensity of the stakeholder network increases, so does theability of stakeholders to exchange information about cor-porate impacts and to coordinate actions against sociallyirresponsible busines.ses. As a result, the focal business be-comes less and less capable of hiding information or deny-ing the relevance of the stakeholder issue(s). Theimportance of the density of a stakeholder's network canbe illustrated with Shell's Brent Spar crisis. While the oilmanufacturer was preparing to blast an old rig in the North

Sea in 1995, Greenpeace established close ties with a vari-ety of powerful stakeholders including environmentalgroups, churches, consumers defense groups, political cir-cles, and journalists. The coordinated actions of these dif-ferent actors led to the widespread criticism of Shell, toconsumer hoycotts, and to Shell's capitulation (Barbone1996), This example illustrates the following proposition;

Proposition 3: The greater the density of a network ofstakeholder communities concerned about an issue,the more positive the impact of the local organiza-tion on this issue.

Cfiífríf/írvo/í/íeoí-^íí/iísofio/j. In contrast, when a busi-ness hus Ihe means to limit the level of interactions takingplace between stakeholders, it is able to hold back or ma-nipulate information about the issue, to antagonize stake-holders' interests, and to avoid addressing the issue. Thisability is referred to as centrality by Rowley ( 1997). Net-work centrality designates the extent to which an actor hascontrol over other actors' access to various regions of thenetwork. This concept can be illustraied with the exampleof Qwest Communications International, Inc., a phonecompany charged with a variety of unethical and illegalpractices ranging from the inflation of sales figures to im-proper accounting (Martin 2002; "Qwest Officials" 2003).Hiding behind a complex set of regulations and technolo-gies, Qwest was able to keep information from its mainstakeholders—including customers, regulators, andshareholders^for many years. There is also evidence thattop managers have tried to antagonize stakeholders, forexample, by suggesting to employees that collaboratingwith regulators could threaten the firm's survival alongwith many jobs. Similarly to Qwest, flrms holding a cen-tral position in a network of stakeholders are able to re-strain information flows between stakeholders and canignore stakeholder issues. The link between network cen-trality and corporate impacts can be summarized as

Proposirion 4: The greater the centrality of the focal or-ganization in a network of stakeholder communi-ties, the less positive the impact of the focalorganization on issues of concern to these commu-

Is Stakeholder Power Necessary toObtain Positive Organizational Impacts?

The discussion above couid imply that businesses willengage in socially responsible behaviors only in the pres-ence of stakeholder power and cooperation. Businesseswould then limit their responsibility initiatives to thoseissues of concern to the most powerful and visible stake-holder communities. This view has some merit especiallysince managers and employees form stakeholder


communities that actively defend specific norms andissues within the firm. However, the organization's ownnorms may stimulate a commitment to a specific causeindependently of any stakeholder pressure. These organi-zational norms may also exceed stakeholder norms withrespect to particular issues. Nevertheless, to meet or evenexceed stakeholder norms defining appropriate businessbehaviors, firms must first be able to identify relevantstakebolder communities along with their norms andissues. In addition, businesses must have processes inplace to examine how their own norms and practices filwith stakeholder norms. The next section introduces someorganizational behaviors that help the firm systematicallyact in a socially responsible manner.

CSR: MANAGERIAL PRACTICES

Stakeholder Orientation as anAntecedent of Organizational Impacts

Keeping aware of stakeholder communities, norms,and issues demands an openness of the firm to its externalenvironment. As pinpointed by Zeithaml and Zeithaml(1984), marketing is concerned with the management ofthe exchange relationships that tie organizations to theirenvironment. Accordingly, the marketing discipline sug-gests organizational processes useful to keep abreast of,and manage, stakeholder relationships (Kimery andRinehart 1998), In particular, with the concept of marketorientation, scholars have characterized the organizationalbebaviors adopted by businesses to understand "custom-ers' expressed and latent needs and develop superior solu-tions to these needs" (Slater and Narver 1999:1165), Asnoted by Matsuno and Mentzer (2000), most conceptual-izations recognize that market-oriented firms do not focussolely on customer requirements but also on the demandsof two market actors: competitors and regulators (e.g,.Day 1994; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater1990).

Going beyond a concem for the market to a broaderconsideration of stakeholder demands, we propose thenotion of stakeholder orientation as a useful concept tograsp the degree to whicb a firm understands andaddresses stakeholder demands. Following Kohli andJaworski's (1990) conceptualization of market orienta-tion, we propose that a stakeholder orientation is com-posed of three sets of behaviors: (a) the organization-widegeneration of intelligence pertaining to the nature of stake-holder communities, norms, and issues, along with theevaluation of the firm's impacts on these issues; (b) tbe dis-semination of this intelligence throughout the organiza-tion; and (c) the organization-wide responsiveness to this

intelligence. Table 1 introduces organizational activitiesrepresentative of these three types of bebaviors.

Generation of stakeholder intelligence. The generationof stakeholder intelligence starts with the identification ofthe stakeholder communities relevant lo the firm. As ear-lier mentioned, the.se communities can be formally orga-nized but can also encompass individuals who sharecommon beliefs and who interact only loosely with oneanother. The selection of relevant stakeholders must bebased on an analysis of the power enjoyed by each stake-holder community and on an evaluation of the aggregatedpower of several communities with ties to one another.Since the nature and relative power of staJteholder com-munities may evolve over time, it is essential that the orga-nization revise its set of relevant stakeholders on a regularbasis.

In a second step. Intelligence generation focuses oncharacterizing the norms and issues about organizationalactivities that are shared among each relevant stakeholdercommunity. As with market orientation, this stakeholderinformation can be gathered through formal research,including surveys, focus groups, or press reviews. Forinstance, the British retailer B&Q organizes biannualmeetings on social and environmental responsibility withcompany representatives, suppliers, customers, and com-munity leaders. Stakeholder intelligence can also be gen-erated informally by a variety of organizational membersas they carry out their daily activities. For example, pur-chasing tnanagers may know about suppliers' demands,public relations executives about tbe media, legai advisersabont regulators, financial executives about investors,sales representatives about customers, and bumanresources advisers about employees. Therefore, intelli-gence about stakeholder norms and issues is generatedcollectively by a variety of agents spread tbroughout theorganization. A third aspect of intelligence generationconsists of evaluating ihe firm's impact on various stake-holder issues. For some issues, objective indicators such asthe following are employed: the annual employee timespent incommunityservice, the number of customer com-plaints, the average hours of training received peremployee per year, or the number of shareholderresolutions proposed per year. Subjective measures ofstakeholders'evaluation of the firm can also be used.

Dissemination of stakeholder intelligence. Given thevariety of the organizational members involved in the gen-eration of stakeholder information, it is essential that thisintelligence be disseminated within the firm. The dissemi-nation of stakeholder information consists of facilitatingflows of information among organizational actors aboutthe nature of relevant stakeholder communities and norms,stakeholder issues, and the current impact of the flrm on

Maigran, Ferrell / CSR

TABLE 1Examples of Activities Significant of a Stakeholder Orientation

Intormiuiongeneration

1. Selection of rekviinl.sliike-holder cona press rev

2. Inquiry intstakeholdepanels, foe

3. Evaluationpact on s(a

4. Evaluationreputationholders.

imunilii;slllimiighiew, lor example).o the nature ofr issues (withus groups).of the firm's im-kcholder issues.of the corporalearnoiif! sLiike-

1, Regular discussions wilreprésentatives of diflorcategories of personnel.

2. Forums of information/discussion on employeeissues (health, stressmanagement, etc).

3. Regular evalualion ofemployee satisfaction.

4. Daia about employee

1. Identification of, and eontiict I, Identification uf communily1 with, customer advocates, leaders.

2. Discussion forums with 2. Consultation with commu-customers to understand Iheir nity leaders to know aboutneeds and concerns. emerging issues.

3. DatLi on customer complainls. 3. Analysis of impact of corpo-

use of recycled materials».4. Survey of the firm's rcputa-

1. Regular interdepartmental 1. Internal communicationsmeetings about trends in the about employee-related

2. Circulation of documents 2. Open-door policy to(reports, newsletters) about superiors,the itnpact of corporate activ- 3, Facilitation of informal¡ties on stakeholder issues. meetings between

3. Facilitating the contacts of employees a( all levels,all departments wiih stake-holders.

I, Prog Lo addre; stake- 1. Employee health andsafety programs.

2. Provision of day care.3. Facilitaling employee

1. Comi::omplaints

.Dis. in fons, for exa

departments. pie. on Intranet.2. Including results of customer 2. Facilitating the participation

research in product policies. of employees into commu-3. Circulation of information on nitj' affairs (giving lectures.

• trends.

1. Pruduct quality and safetyimprovement programs.

2. Programs to respond to

3. Facilities for handicapped

attendin3. Granting a prize for die best

1. Philanthropic and

these issues. As is the case for market orientation, the dis-setnination of stakeholder intelligence can be organizedformally through activities such as newsletters, theIntranet, and internal information fomms. But informationcan also be exchanged informally during routine interac-tions between organizational members. Following Kohli.Jaworski. and Kumar (1993). stakeholder intelligence dis-semination takes place both horizotitally (across variousdepartments) and vertically (across lines of authority).

Responsiveness to stakeholder intelligetice. A stake-holder orientation is not complete unless it includes the ac-tivities adopted by the orgatiization to actually meetstakeholder demands. The organization-wide responsive-ness to stakeholder intelligence consists of the initiativesadopted in order to ensure that the firm abides by. or ex-ceeds, stakeholder norms on a number of issues. Such re-sponsiveness activities are likely to be specific to astakeholder community (e.g., family-friendly work sched-ules) or to a stakeholder issue (e,g., emissions reductionprograms).

Organizational Norms as anAntecedent of Organizational Impacts

Even though a high stakeholder orientation stimulatessocially responsible corporate behaviors, it is not suffi-cient to ensure that the organization will systematicallybehave responsibly. Even when an organization generatesintelligence over stakeholder norms and issues, it maychoose to adopt initiatives tha!. unlike those presented inTable 1. are not aimed at affecting positively those issues.Businesses may choose to avoid complying with stake-holder norms, for example, by masking nonconformity, bychanging the nature of their relations to stakeholder com-tnunities, or by influencing stakeholders' evaluation of thefirm's impact (Oliver 1991 ; ZeithamI and Zeithaml 1984).

In addition, in the presence of stakeholders with similarpower ievels and conflicting norms, a stakeholder orienta-tion does not provide any gtiidance as to which norms tolïtvor. Similarly, limited organizational resources requirethat the firm select specific issues among those advocatedby equally powerful stakeholder communities. A stake-


holder orientation does not establish priorities betweenstakeholder issues. Accordingly, in supplement to a stake-holder orientation, organizational norms are required todefine what constitutes desirable behaviors toward stake-holders and to select among stakeholder communities andissues. In particular, organizational norms may stipulatethe nature of

1, ihcmosireievant stakeholder communities {e.g.,"We demonstrate our responsibility as a corpo-rate citizen when we interact with our custom-ers, associates, and the community at large,"www, prudential,com)

2, the stakeholder isstês viewed as priorities (e.g.,"ConAgra is committed to finding solutions andworking with organizations to help feed Amer-ica's hungry children," www.conagra.com)

3, appropriate behaviors toward stakeholders(e,g,, "We are proud of our efforts to maintain aworkforce that represents many backgrounds,and are deeply committed to cultivafing an envi-ronment where the contributions of every em-ployee, customer, and vendor are respected,"www.noi-dstrom.com)

Whether they are expressed formally or informally, or-ganizational norms help clarify lhe nalure of the stake-holder issues to be tackled along with the standardsdefining appropriate behaviors. Therefore, they favor cor-porate decisions and practices that have a positive impacton stakeholder issues. However, organizational norms dic-tating the nature of stakeholder responsibilities are not suf-ficient to systematically obtain responsible corporatebehaviors: organizational norms may conflict with thenorms of powerful stakeholder communities. Accord-ingly, it is the combination of a stakeholder orientation andof organizational norms that is most conducive of positivecorporate impacts on stakeholder issues. Hence, thefollowing two propositions are advanced:

Proposition 5: A greater stakeholder orientation is asso-ciated with more positive impacts on stakeholder is-sues when more organizational norms definingresponsibilities toward stakeholders are in place.

Proposition 6: More organizational norms defining re-sponsibilities toward stakeholders are associatedwitli more positive impacts on stakeholder issueswhen a high stakeholder orientation is in place.

As indicated in Figure 1, reciprocal infiuences betweenan organization's stakeholder orientation and its stake-holder norms are likely to emerge. The generation of intel-ligence about stakeholder communities helps identify newstakeholder issues and may therefore lead to an adjttstmentof organizational norms. Reciprocally, when organiza-tional norms give priority to specific stakeholder commu-nities, the generation, dissemination, and responsiveness

processes are likely to focus more on these preferredstakeholders.

Organizational and StakeholderCharacteristics Are Both Antecedentsof Organizational Impacts

Noticeably, as shown in Figure 1, we suggest that stake-holder characteristics (power, ability to cooperate) andorganizational features (stakeholder orientation, norms)respectively infiuence organizational impacts on specificissues. Even in the absence of organizational norms defin-ing stakeholder responses, and when the stakeholder ori-entation is low, powerfnl stakeholder communities maystill be able to infiuence corporate behaviors because theycan withdraw resources away from the firm. For example,probably due to its dominant position in the diamondsmarket. De Beers had not worried until the late 1900sabout developing norms or practices to account for stake-holders' concerns and expectations. However, when sev-eral human rights defense groups launched a successfulboycott against De Beers to condemn its collaborationwith Angolan rebel groups, the diamond company had lit-tle choice but to stop its dealings in Angola. Similarly, aspreviously mentioned, even when powerful stakeholdercommunities do not exercise pressures, an organizationcan choose to favor socially responsible behaviors. A casein point is Hershey's, a company that adopted cleEtr guide-lines dictating appropriate behaviors during its foundingyears in the early 1890s, These guidelines were based onMilton Hershey's personal values, and not on specificrequirements imposed by stakeholder communities.Therefore, stakeholder and organizational factors,respectively, are expected to directly influence the impactof businesses on various stakeholder issues.

This does not mean that organizational norms and thedegree of stakeholder orientation emerge completely inde-pendently of pressures from stakeholder communities. Onthe contrary, as illustrated in Figure 1, an organization'sstakeholder orientation and norms defining stakeholderresponsibilities are likely to be influenced by stake-holders' power and ability to cooperate. In particular,faced with powerful and closely connected stakeholdercommunities, a focal organization is likely to developnorms defining desirable behaviors and to encouragestakeholder-oriented behaviors. Otherwise, the organiza-tion may soon become incapable of keeping aware of, andchoosing among, stakeholder demands. Accordingly, weadvance the following propositions:

Pwposition 7: The greater the power of stakeholdercommunities, the greater tbe stakeholder orientationof the focal organization and the more organiza-tional norms defining responsibilities towardstakebolders.

Maijjnan.Feirell/CSR 13

Proposition S: Tbe greater stakebolders' ability to coop-erate, tbe greater the stakeholder orientation of tbefocal organization and tbe more organizationalnorms defining responsibilities toward stake-holders,

Pwposition So: Tbe greater tbe convergence of stake-bolder norms with respect to an issue across stake-bolder communities, tbe greater tbe stakebolderorientation of tbe focal organization and tbe moreorganizational norms defining responsibilitiestoward stakebolders.

Proposition 8b: The greater the density of tbe network ofstakeholders concerned about an issue, tbe greaterthe stakeholder orientation of tbe focal organizationand tbe more organizational norms defining respon-sibilities toward stakebolders.

Proposition 8c: Tbe lower tbe centrality of tbe focal or-ganization in tbe network of stakebolder communi-ties, tbe greater tbe stakebolder orientation of thefocal organization and tbe more organizationalnorms defining responsibilities toward stake-bolders,

A bigb-level stakebolder orientation and tbe implemen-tation of organizational norms clarifying stakeholder re-sponsibilities help tbe organization ensure tbat stake-bolders continue to provide necessary organizationalresources. However, tbe successful management of CSR isnot limited to securing tbe undisrupted flow of stakeholderresources; instead, it may also aim at generating increasedstakebolder resources. The next section examines howCSR can belp market tbe organization to its stakeboldersand stimulate tbeir active support.

CSR: INSTRUMENTAL PRACTICES

Past research investigating stakeholders' reactions tosocially responsible corporate bebaviors remains embry-onic. Nevertbeless. a few marketing studies suggest tbatperceptions of CSR may generate increased resource.^from one specific category of stakebolders: consumers.For instance, Handelman and Arnold (1999) observed tbatconsumers engage in positive word of moutb about firmscommitted to actions that demonstrate adberence to insti-tutional norms. Maignan et al. (1999) establisbed a posi-tive relationsbip between CSR and customer loyalty in amanagerial survey. Other studies bave also demonstratedtbat consumers are willing to actively support companiescommitted to cause-related marketing, environmentallyfriendly practices, or ethics (Barone et al. 2000: Bergerand Kanetkar 1995; Creyer and Ross 1997). Furtbermore,tbere is evidence tbat some consumers are ready to sanc-tion socially irresponsible companies, for example, byboycotting their products and services (Gairett 1987: Sen.Gürhan-Canli. and Morwitz 2001), Consequently,

negative corporate impacts on issues valued bystakebolders may lead to decreased stakeholder resources.

Some preliminary researcb evidence suggests tbatsocially responsible corporate bebaviors may also kad toincreased employee resources. For example. Turban andGreening (1996), along witb Luce, Barber, and Hillman(2Û01), observed that firms rating bigb on CSR are per-ceived as more attractive by job applicants. In addition,Maignan et al. (1999) bigblighted a positive relationsbipbetween CSR and employee commitment. Tbese observa-tions imply tbat employees may also be willing to providemore resources—in terms of time, energy, and dedica-tion—to tbe companies tbat have positive impacts onstakebolder issues.

Researcb on stakebolders' reactions to socially respon-sible or irresponsible business practices remains scarce. Inparticular, investigations bave been limited in terms ofthestakebolder categories considered (consumers andemployees) and the stakebolder resources examined. Inaddition, the studies mentioned above have not explainedtbe process tbrougb wbicb positive and negative corporateimpacts on stakeholder issues affect the availability ofstakebolder resources. However, several autbors(Drumwrigbt 1996; Maignan and Ferrell 2001; Sen andBbattacharya 2001) bave suggested tbat organizationalidentification tbeory may provide a solid basis to under-stand how positive CSR impacts generate tbe active sup-port of consumers. Building on tbis suggestion, we arguetbat socially responsible corporate behaviors may triggerstakebolder identification and increased stakebolderresources. Conversely, as illustrated in Figure 1. corporatebebaviors tbat fall sbort of stakebolder norms may lead tostakebolder disidentificalion and decreased stakebolderresources. Our conceptual framework considers solely tbeconsequences of CSR impacts in terms of dis/identifica-tion, Tbis focus is admittedly bmited and ignores otberpatbs through wbicb organizational impacts couldtranslate into varying levels of stakebolder resources.

Outcomes of CSR: StakeholderIdentification and Disidentification

Scbolars bave demonstrated tbat people identify witborganizations wben tbey perceive an overlap betweenorganizational attributes and tbeir individual attributes(Asbfortb and Mael 1989; Dulton, Dukerich. andHarquael 1994; Tajfel and Turner 1985). Scott and Lane(2000) suggested tbat tbe concept of organizational identi-fication applies not only to organizational members butalso to other stakebolders, Tbese authors defined organi-zational identity as "the set of beliefs sbared between topmanagers [... ] and stakebolders about tbe central, endur-ing, and distinctive cbaracteristies of an organization" (p.44), As stakebolders perceive tbat key organizational fea-tures are in congruence witb tbeir self-identity, tbey are


iikely to identify with the organization. Past research hashighlighted some beneflts of organizational identification,includitig employee commitment (O'Reilly and Chatman1986), decreased turnover (O'Reilly and Chatman 1986),along with generally helpful and supportive organiza-tional behavior (Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn 1985;Dutton et al. 1994; Tajfel and Turner 1985). Recent inves-tigations also suggest that organizational disidentificationmay occur when individuals perceive a conflict betweentheir deflning attributes and the attributes characterizingthe organization (Bhattacharya and Elsbach 2002; Elsbachand Bhattacharya 2001). Disidentification signifies a sep-aration of the person's self-concept from that of the orga-nization (Bhattacharya and Elsbach 2002, cf, p, 28) andtranslates into negative perceptions of the organization.Coiporations such as WorldCom and Enron that have beenconfronted with scandai experience disidentification frominvestors, employees, and customers.

When engaging in actions aimed at addressing a spe-cific stakeholder issue, an organization clearly acknowl-edges the importance of that issue. Stakeholders sharingthe same concern for that issue are likely to appreciate thefirm's initiative, and a feeling of bonding to the firm maythen emerge. In contrast, when an organization's behav-iors violate the norms embraced by a stakeholder commu-nity, the members of that community are likely to feelalienated and to disidentify from the organization. Eventhough past studies of consumer boycotts do not mentionorganizational disidentification, they do illustrate verywell how this process of dissociation can take place amongcertain consumer groups as aresult of questionable corpo-rate actions (e.g., Garrett 1987; Sen, Gürhan-Canli, andMorwitz 2001). Similarly, there is evidence that employ-ees disidentify from businesses that commit irresponsibleactions (Dutton et al. 1994). Since stakeholder communi-ties may not show the same level of concern for variousissues, stakeholder identification and disidentification aredisplayed in Figure 1 as specific to an issue and to astakeholder community.

Overall, we propose that the positive impact of a busi-ness on a stakeholder issue encourages the organizationalidentification of stakeholders concerned with that issue. Inturn, organizational identification is likely to lead to in-creased stakeholder resources. Conversely, negative busi-ness impacts on a stakeholder issue may lead to theorganizational disidentification of the stakeholders con-cerned with that issue. This disidentification process islikely to lead to decreased stakeholder resources. There-fore, the following two propositions are advanced:

Proposition 9: The more positive [negative] the impactof a focal organization on a stakeholder issue, thegreater the organizational identification [disidentifi-cation] of the stakeholders who are concerned withthat is.sue.

Proposition W: The greater the organizational identifi-cation [disidentification] of stakeholders with an or-ganization, the greater [lower] the stakeholderresources granted to that organization.

Past research findings suggest that positive corporateimpacts on stakeholder issues do not systematically lead toincreased stakeholder identification and resources, in par-ticular, past studies have demonstrated that consumer sup-port of CSR may be moderated by a variety of factors suchas the level of support for the issue under consideration,perceived efficacy, and perceived price/quality trade-offs(Barone, Miyazaki , and Taylor 2000; Sen andBhattacharya 2001). Similarly, several factors such as per-ceived costs, perceived efficacy, and personal values havebeen found to affect consumers' willingness to engage in aboycott (Garrett 1987; Sen et al. 2001), The scope of thesevarious studies is very limited both in terms of the stake-holder groups considered and the organizational practicesscrutinized. Nevertheless, they suggest some factors thatmay moderate the relationships outlined in Propositions 7and 8. Overall, social responsibility practices emerge as apotentially useful instrument to market the organization tostakeholders and to avoid stakeholder sanctions. The nextsection suggests that marketing activities can help the or-ganization further benefit from its commitment to CSR.

CSR Communicationsas a Moderating Factor

Stakeholders' awareness of businesses' impacts on spe-cific issues is a prerequisite to organizational identifica-tion. Therefore, as suggested in Figure 1, stakeholderidentification depends on the extent to which the furocommunicates about its CSR initiatives to differentpublics. Scott and Lane (2000) outlined three mechanismsused by organizafions to prompt stakeholders' cognitiveelaboration of an organizational identity: (a) presentingorganizational images in communications, (b) makingstakeholders' affiliation with the organization more pub-lic, and (c) increasing interactions with the organizationand/or among stakeholders. This classification suggeststhree main approaches whereby marketing communica-tions can trigger enhanced stakeholder identification: (a)including CSR images in organizational communications,(b) enhancing stakeholders' affiliation to the firm based ona shared concern for a specific issue, and (c) stimulatingstakeholder interactions around CSR.

With instruments such as advertisements, promotions,public speeches, or newsletters, corporate communica-tions can help spread the image of a good corporate citizencaring about important stakeholder issues. For example, inits advertising campaign entitled "Profits and Principles.Is there a choice?" Shell asserted its dedication to environ-mental protection with statements such as: "our

i,Fírri;ll/CSR 15

commitment to sustainable development, balancing eco-nomic progress with environmental care and socialresponsibility." Starbucks has adopted a different tactic;this company sells a so-called Fair Trade coffee; this itemgives an opportunity for the firtn to introduce its commit-ment to helping developing countries and helps pre,sentStarbucks as a responsible organization. This type of com-munications keep stakeholders informed about the firm'sinitiatives to address specific social responsibility issues.

Corporate messages can also emphasize the affiüationlinking stakeholders lo the firm based on a shared concernfor, or commitment to, a specific issue. Such communica-tions establish CSR as a potential bond between tbe firmand its stakeholders. For example, Wal-Mart advertises onstore displays and on its Web site the prizes, thank-you let-ters, and special acknowledgments received by its employ-ees during the working hours they spent as volunteers inthe community. These messages make public the commonconcern for the community displayed by both the com-pany and its employees. The publicized affiliation andcommitment might be appealing to potential recruits, con-sumers, and community leaders. Following a similarapproach, the mortgage supplier Fannie Mae advertises inthe press and on its Web site its partnersbip with the city ofMinneapolis to help rejuvenate endangered neighbor-hoods. Accordingly, Fannie Mae publicizes simulta-neously its affiliation with community leaders andregulators along with itó commitment to fighting socialexclusion.

A third type of CSR communications likely to enhancestakeholder identification with the firm consists in increas-ing interactions between the firm and its stakeholdersaround an issue. For example, the services company EDSencourages stakeholder interactions during its "GlobalVolunteer Day," an event when employees, business part-ners, and clients are offered to join forces to work on acommon project in tbe community. Shell organizes an un-censored online forum opened to all site visitors who areinvited to talk about "issues and dilemmas" linked to thefirm's operations. By highlighting these overlapping con-cerns, such initiatives stimulate the development of strongrelationships between stakeholders and the focal organiza-tion. Overall, corporate communications not only createawareness for CSR initiatives but also present CSR as abond between the firm and ils stakeholders. This idea isfiirther specified in the three following propositions:

Proposition I ¡a: The more communications include im-ages displaying the commitment of the focal organi-zation to an issue, the stronger the relationshipbetween the positive impacts of tbe organization onthat issue and the organizational identification of thestakeholders concerned with that issue.

Proposition lib: The more communications underlinestakeholder affiliation based on a shared concem for

an issue, the stronger the relationship between thepositive impacts of tbe organization on that issueand the organizational identification of the stake-holders concerned with that issue.

Proposition lie: The more communications stimulateinteractions with and between stakeholders aroundan issue, the stronger the relationship between thepositive impacts of the organization on that issueand the organizational identification of the stake-holders concerned with that issue.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Operationaiizing theConceptual Framework

Given that our investigation is conceptual, the nextresearch step would be to examine the research proposi-tions empirically. Table 2 provides some suggestions tooperational i ze the main concepts introduced and high-lights potentially fruitful linkages to acknowledged areasof the marketing literature. Even though most constructsdiscussed in this article have rarely been employed in themarketing discipline, some of their facets have beenresearched, usually with a focus on either of the two fol-lowing stakeholder groups; consumers or channel mem-bers. For instance, marketers have not traditionally exam-ined the notions of stakeholder community, stakeholdernorms, or stakeholder power. However. Ihey have con-ducted research on constructs such as consumption com-muntttes, channel members norms, and lnterfirm power.Accordingly, our conceptual framework invites marketingresectrchers to expand the scope of existing marketing con-cepts to additional stakeholders besides customers and/orchannel members and to adapt tlieir operational izations toaccount for this broader scope.

Integrating Past and Future Research

Our research pinpoints four main research questionsthat can help structure past and future research on CSRfrom a marketing perspective. Each of these questions isintroduced below.

How do stakeholder norms infiuence business prac-tices? A first stream of marketing research consists ofcharacterizing and comparing the norms embraced by dif-ferent stakeholder communities, A starting point for thistype of analysis is the existing research on managers' andconsumers' respective views of CSR (e.g,, Maignan andFerrell 2003; Mohr, Webb, and Hairis 2001; Singhapakdiet al, 1996). These inquiries have used differentiated re-search approaches, which prevents a direct comparison ofnorms across stakeholder groups. Our discussion calls forthe development of a standardized methodology that couldbe applied to a variety of stakeholder communities. Ide-

16 JOURNALOFTHEACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCI-

TABLE 2Suggestions to Operationalize the Main Research Concepts

Stakeholder power

Density of stakeholder

Corporateimpacts

Stakeholder(dis)identificat

Consumption communities (e.g.. McGrath. Sherry, andHeisley 1993); brand communities (e.g., Munix and

O'GuinnlOOl)

Marketing managers'norms of CSR (e.g., Sin|[hapakdi.Vitell. Rallapalli, and Kraft 1996); norms in marketing

channels (e.g., Grewal and Dharwadkar 20112)

Interfirm power (e.g., Frazier and Summers 1986);

consumer resistance (e.g.. Holt 2002)

Marketing alliances in the büsiness-to-btisiness context(e.g., Rindfleisch and Moorman 2001 ; Welsch and

Wilkinson 2002)

Market orientation (e,g., Matsuno and Mentzer 2000;Narver and Slater 19901

te (e.g., Babin. Boks, and Rubin

leasures of CSR practices (e.g.. Maignan. Ferrell,and Huit 1999)

Identification with social marketing (e,g,, Bhattacharyaand Elsbach 2002); customer identification (e.g.,

Bhtittacharya. Rao. and Glynn 1995)

Organizational citizenship (e.g., MacKen;îe. Podsakoff.and Fetter 1993); reputation (e.g.. ftombrun, Gardberg.and Sever 2000); customer loyalty (e.g., Farasuramanand Grewal 2000)

t analysis of the press: selecting an issjc and asscctors that have been advocating this issue based o:

Managerial surveys/interviews: managers'different stakeholders' power

Stakeholder interviews: selecting arissue; inquiring about the interacdifferent stakeholder communitie

Managerial interviews/surveys; exaorganization adopts various hehageneration of. dissemination of. istakeholder intelligence

Content analysis of corporate doc

norms stated by the organization

Secondary data; objective indicators (e.g., injurynumber of product recalls, ntimber of customedonations); radngs by independent organizatio

Domini 400 Social Index)

Stakeholder interviews/surveys:degree of identification with f

industry anda specificans taking place betweei

ining whether theors typiiying thed responsiveness to

^nts: identification of tht

sing stakeholders'that have positive

Customers: loyalty, positive word of mouth, hrand equity

Employees: assessment of commitment and job satisfactionSuppliers: measure of cooperation, investments in assetsInvestors: amount of invested capital, shareholder loyaltyMedia: numher of positive press releasesAll stakeholders: reputation measures

NOTE: CSR = corporate

ally, this methodology would elicit stakeholders' percep-tions of the main issues raised by corporate activitieswithin a certain industry or geographic area. Such an anal-ysis could highlight some areas of consensus deservingthe attention of businesses, activists, and public policymakers.

A second and related stream of research foctises onunderstanding how various stakeholder communitiesexercise power on businesses. Marketing studies haveexamined some CSR advocacy initiatives employed bystakeholder groups such as consumers (e.g.. Garrett 1987;Sen et al. 2001). environmental defense groups (e.g..Stafford. Polonsky. and Hartman 2000). channel members(e.g,. Maigjian. Hillebrand, and McAlister 2002). andinternal policy entrepreneurs (Drumwright 1994). How-ever, these i nvestigations have focused on speciftc actions(e.g.. boycotts) and have not developed a classiftcation ofthe strategies employed across a variety of stakeholder

groups. The development of such a classification in com-bination with an analysis of the success factors attached todifferent strategies could be the focus of future marketingstudies. This research could be of interest to both pressuregroups and regulators.

Which organizational processes can stitnutate sociallyresponsible corporate behaviors? Past research has saidvery little ahout the processes that can help ensure that so-cially responsible corporate hehaviors are systematicallyfavored by organizational members. To date, marketershave mainly discussed the importance of codes of conductin stimulating ethical business practices (e.g.. Harker andHarker 2000: Murphy 1988). Our research suggests twotypes of processes—a stakeholder orientation and theadoption of organizational norms—that can support so-cially responsible corporate practices. Marketing researchis needed to depict in much greater details which hehav-

iors are significant of a stakeholder orienlation and whichexact norms can favor a systematic concern for stake-holders. The literature streams on market orientation andmarketing ethics, respectively, provide a sound basis forthis type of research.

How do different stakeholders react lo CSR praciices ?Our analysis emphasizes the difficulty of bringing to-gether past marketing findings on consnmers' reactions toCSR (e,g., Barone et al. 2000; Creyer and Ross 1997;Webb and Mohr 1998). Past findings remain hardly com-parable because they focus on specialized facets of CSRand investigatedifferent forms of consumer responses. Wepropose that future studies examining the impact of CSRinitiatives consider one common outcome (e.g., organiza-tional identification) across a variety of stakeholder com-munities. We also suggest that future research couldevaluate the effect of irresponsible corporate behaviors byscrutinizing tbeir relationship to stakeholder disidentiftca-tion. Studies on stakeholders' reactions to CSR would helpassess the business benefits and costs associated with,respectively, responsible and irresponsibie corporatebebaviors.

How to communicate about CSR practices? There isonly embryonic marketing research on CSR communica-tions. Some studies have examined the success factors ofadvertising witb a social dimension (e.g,, Drumwright! 996) and the tactics employed by organizations to conveysocial responsibility images (e.g., Arnold, Kozinets, andHandelman 2001). Otir study calls for research that scruti-nizes the communication strategies, media, and appealsmost appropriate to engender awareness of CSR practicesand to stimulate stakeholder identification. Our discussionfurther suggests that businesses cannot hope to enjoy con-crete benefits from CSR unless they intelligentlycommunicate about their initiatives to relevantstakeholders.

Overall, by outlining these four research streams, weencourage marketing scholars to (a) consider extendingestablished concepts and research questions to a variety ofstakeholders and (b) evaluate the nature, antecedents, andoutcomes of CSR practices in a systematic fashion thatenables the comparability of findings across CSR initia-tives, stakeholder communities, and stakeholder issues.Finally, our conceptualization tnakes clear that the imple-mentation of CSR does not consist of the launching of afew benevolent initiatives sucb as philanthropy programs,environmental protection policies, or employee-friendiypractices. Instead, to enact their commitment to CSR.businesses must embrace a solid set of principles and pro-cesses that can help to systematically address stakeholderdemands and secure stakeholder support.

REFERENCES

Ackcrman, R.W, 1975. The Social Challenge to Business. Cambridge,M A ; H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y PFL•^s

A g l ü , B r a d l e y R , , R o n a i J K l i ' . I.. ;l .i.<l i. i IL7 A , S o n n e n f e l d . 1 9 9 9 ." W h o M a t t e r s t o C E O ' . • . 1 . 1 1 1 • .1 S t a k e h o l d e r A t t r i b u t e sa n d S a l i e n o e , C o r p o r a l ! . ' I' n • I ( l"Oi, Valuer" Academyof Management Journal M 1 •• ''!••' •.'-•

Andreasen, Alan R, 1994, "Sociiil Murku'iin^: ILS Definition and Da-m'MTirJoumalof Public Policy andMarketingn{Spnrtg):\Qi-\\A.

Arnold. Stephen J,, Robert V, Koïinets. and Jay Handelman, 2001,"Hometown Ideology and Retailer Legitimation: Tlie InstitutionalSemiotics of Wai-Man Flyerv" Jinimul of Retailing 77:243-271,

Ashforth. Biake E. and Fred Maul. 1989, "Social Identity Theory and theOrganizzuoar Academy of Management Review 14(11:20-39,

Bubin, Barry J , James S, Boles, and Donald P, Robin, 2000. "Represent-ing [he Perceived Ethical Work Climate Among Marketing Êt<\ç\tiy-ec:i." Journal of the Academy ofMiirketingScience2Hiy.345-35i.

Barbone, Carol, 1996, 'The Battle For Brent Spar." CommunicationWorld 13 (I): 27,

Barone,Michael J,, Anthony D, Miyazaki, and Kimberly A,Taylor. 2000,"The lnnuence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice:Does One Good Turn Deserve Another?" Joumal of the Academy ofMarketing Science 28 (2): 248-262.

BtTgtT, Ida E. and Vinay Kanetkar. 1995, "Increasing EttvironmentalSensitivity Via Workplace Experitnetils," Jouma! of Public Policyand Marketing 14 (2): 205-215.

Berman, Shawn L., Andrew C. Wicks, Stiresh Kotha, and Thomas M.Jones, 1999, "Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relation-ship Between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm FinancialPerformance,'' Academy ofManegement Journal 42 (5): 438-506.

Bhattacharya, C, B, and Kimberly D, Elsbach, 2002, "Us Versus Them:The Roles of Organizational Identification and Dis identification inSocial Marketing In¡tiatives.'Vciurníí/ci/fi(ii;jL-/'o;jcvaní/Martel(rifi21 (Spring]: 26-3Ö,

, Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn, 1995, "Understandingthe Bond of Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates AmongAn Museum Members," Joumal of Marketing 59 (October): 46-57.

Blodgett, Jeffrey G.. Long-Chuan Lu, Gregory M- Rose, and Scott J,Vitell. 2001, "Ethical Sensitivity to Stakeholder Interests: A Cross-Cultural Comparison." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science29(2): 190-202,

Bowen, H, R, 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. NewYork: Harper & Row,

Brown, Tom J. and Peter A, Dacin, 1997, 'TheCompany and the Product:Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses," Journalof Marketing 61 (January): 68-84,

Carroll, Archie B, ¡979, "A Tliree-Dimensional Conceptual Model ofCorporate Performance," Academy of Manageriient Review 4 (4):497-505,

Clarkson,MaxB,E, l995,"AStakeholderFti!meworkforAna]yzittgandEvaluating Corporate Social Perfonnance." Academy of Manage-ment Review 20 {\y. 92-Wl.

Creyer, Elizabeth H. and William T. Ross Jr, 1997, "The Influence ofFirm Behavior on Purchase Intentions: Do Consuttters Really CareAbout Business Ethics?" Joumal of Consumer Marketing 14 (6]:421-432,

Day, George, 1994, "The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations."Journal of Marketing 5S (October): 37-52,

Donaldson, Thomas and Thoma.s W, Dtinfee. 1994, "Toward a UnifiedConception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory."Academy of Management Review 19 (21: 252-284.

and LeeE. Preston. 1995, "The StakeholderTheoryoftheCoHJo-ration: Concepts, Evidence and Implications," Academy of Manage-ment Review 29 (January): 65-91.

Drumwright, Minette E, 1994, "Socially Responsible OrganizationalBuying: Environmental Concern as a Noneconomic Buying Crite-rion," Jotirnal of Marketing 58 (July): 1-19,

18 JOURNALOFTHE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

— . 1596. "CuinpLjny Ailvtilisiiia WLlll a Sociiil Duiiension: TheRole of Noneconomic Criieriii." Journal of Marketing 60 (Oclober):71-87.

Dunfee, Thomas W,, N, Craig Smilh, and Wilüam T. Ross Jr. I ^99. "So-

14-32.Dullon, Jane M., Janel M. Dukurith. and CeMü V. Harquad. 1994. "Orga-

nizitiional Images and Mi?niber IdcnLincarion" Administrative .Sci-ence Qiiarterh 39 (34); 239-263.

Elsbiicli, K. D. and C. B. Bhaimcharya. 2001. -Dellning Who You Are byWhai You're Noi; A Study of Organizauonal Dis¡den(ificaiion andIhe NRA" Organizational Science I2(4|: 393-413.

Etzioni, AmitaL. 1996. The Neiv Golden Rule. New York: Basic Books.. 2000. "Epilogue." In Autonomy and Order Ed. Edward W.

Lehman. Lanham, MD; Rowman & Liltlefield, 219-236.Ferrell, O. C. and Lany Gresham, 1985. "A Contingency Framework for

Understanding Elhical Decision Making in Marketing." Joumal ofMarketing 49 (Summer); 87-96,

Fombrun, C. J,, N. A. Gardberg, and J. Sever. 2000. "The ReputaiionQuotient: A Mulli-Slakeholder Measure of Corporate Repuiation."Jourtial of Brand Management 7 14): 241-255.

Fraiier, Gary L. and John O. Summers. 1986. "Perceptions of InterfirmPower and Us Use Within a Franchise Channel of Distribution." Jour-nal of Marketing Research 23 (May): 169-178.

Frederick, Willimn C. 1991. "The Moral Authority of Transnational Cor-porate Codes." Journal of Business Ethics 10 (30): 165-177.

Frooman, Jeff. 1999. "Stakeholder Intluenee Strategies." Academy ofManagement Review 24 (2): 191-205.

Garrett, Dennis E. I9S7. "The Effecüveness of Marketing Policy Boy-coEts: Environmental Opposition to Marketing.'* Joumal of Market-ms 51 (April): 46-57.

Goolsby, Jerry R. and Shelby D.Hjnt. 1992. •'(".!•: \ii.i.il I iL-vclop-ment and Marketing." yo((niaío/Afí/i-í.,í);; "•• ' n i. • •d^;.

Grewal, Rajdeep and Ravi Dharwadkar. 201)2 n,. i.,i. .i ii . II.MKU-tional Environment in Marketing Chan ncK i- i r'."•.• i ••.' i/.i'".' ^ ffiji,' 66(3): 82-97.

Griffin, Jennifer J. 2000. "Corporate Social Performance; Research Di-rections for the 21 st Century." Business & Society 39 (4): 479-491,

Handelman. Jay M. and Stephen J.Arnold. 1999.'The Roleof MarketingActions With a Social Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Envi-ronment." Joumai of Marketing 63 (July): 33-48.

Harker, Debra andMichael Harker. 2000. "The Role of Codes of Conduct

Macromarketitig2Q{2y. 155-166.Henriques, Irene and Perry Sadorsk-y. 1999. "The Relationship Between

Environmental Commitment and Managerial Perceptions of Stake-holder Importance."/icoííeíiivo/A/a/jogeíJicíiiJoi/ma; 4211 ): B9-99.

Hill, Charles W. L. and Thomas M. Jones. 1992. "Stakeholder-AgencyTheory" Joumal of Management Studies 29 {2y 131-154.

Holt, Douglas B. 2002. "Why do Biands Cause Trouble? A DialecücalTheory of Consumer Culture atid Branding." Joumal of CotisumerResearch 29 (June): 70-90.

Jawahar. I, M. and Gary L. McLaughlin. 2001. 'Toward a DescriptiveStakeholderTbeory; An Organizational LifeCycle Approach."/Icnd-eniyofMatiagetnenl Revieiv 26 (3): 397^14.

Jones, Thomas M. 1995. "Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesisof Ethics and Ecot\omics'' Academy of Matiagemetit Review 20 (2y404-437.

KimeQ'. M. Kathtyn and Shelley M. Rinebart. 1998. "Markets and Con-stimencies: An Alternative View of tbe Markenng Concept.'Voiicj«/of Business Research ii:[\7-i24.

Kobli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski. 1990. "Market Orientation: TheConstruct. Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications."Journal iif Marketing 54 tAptWy. 1-18.

. , and Ajith Kumar. 1993. "MARKÖR: A Measure ofMarket Orientation." ./oiimn/ of Marketing Re.'êarch 30 (November!:4Ó7-477,

Kotier. Pbilip and Sidney Levy. 1969. "Broadening the Concept of Mar-keting" Joiirw/i^/Marfei/HK 33 (January): 10-15.

Lazer, William. 1969. "Marketing's Changing Social Relationships."Jourttal of Marketing 33 (January): 3-9.

Luce, Rebecca A., Alison E. Barber, and Amy J, Hillman. 2001. "GoodDeeds and Misdeeds: A Mediated Model of tbe Effect of Corporate

Social Perlorinance on Organi/atiunal Aitract ive ness." Business &5üi?/crv40(4): 397-415.

MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Potlsakoff, and Richard Fetter. 1993.'The Impactof Organizational Citizenihip Behavior on EvaluationsofSalesperson Performance." JCTíraü/o//Würjtt'fíng 57 (January): 70-80.

Maignan, Isabelle and O. C. Fenell. 2001. "Corporate Citizenship as aMarketing Instrument: Concepts, Evidence, and Research Direc-tion-; " European Journal of Marketing 35 (3/4): 457-484.

jnd 2\m. "Nature of Corporate Responsibilities: Per-spective'. From American. French, and German Consumers.'Voumoiof Business Reseanh 5fi 111: 55-67.

.. , and G. Tomas M, Huit. 1999. "Corporate Citizenship:Cultural Antecedents and Business BenellLs." Journal ofthe Acad-emy of Marketing Science 27 (4): 455-469.

, Baa Hillebrand, and Debbie MeAlister. 2002. "Managing So-cially Responsible Buying." European Joiimal of Management 20(6): 641-648.

and David A. Ralston. 2002. "Corporate Social Responsibilily inEurope and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses' Self-Presenlations."Journal of Internatiutuil Business Studies 33 (3): 497-514.

Martin, Micbael. 2002. "Qwest Sinks Deeperin Trouble," WeiiiwitH'DrW19 131): 33-35.

Matsuno, Ken and John T. Mentzcr. 2000. "The Effects of Strategy Typeon the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship." Joumal ofMarketing 64 (Ocioberj: 1-16.

McGrath, Mary Ann, John F. Sherry Jr.. and Deborah D. Heisley. 1993."An Ethnographic Study of an Urban Periodic Marketplace; LessonsFrom the Midville Farmer's Market." Joumal of Retailitig 69 (Fall):280-319.

McWilliam-s, Abgail and Donald Siegel. 2001. "CSR: A Theory of theFirm Perspiiclivii." Academy of Management Review 26 ( I ): 117-127.

Menon, Ajay and Anil Menon. 1997. "Enviropreneuriai Marketing Strat-egy: The Emergence of Corporate Environmentalism as MarketingSuMegy." Journal of Marketing 6i (January): 51-67.

Mohr, Lois A., Deborah J. Webb, and Katherine E. Harris. 2001. "DoConsumers Expect Companies tg Be Socially Responsible? The Im-pact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior." Jour-nal of Consumer Affairs 35 (I ]; 45-72.

Muniz, Albert M. Jr. and Thomas C. O'Guinn. 2001. "Brand Commu-nity" Joiinio/o/Coiíjiimerficseííffíi 27 (March): 412^32.

Murphy, Patrick E. 1988. "Implementing Business Ethics." Journal ofBusiness Ethics7:W7-9\5.

Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater. 1990. "The Effect of Market Orien-tation on Business Profitability." Journal of Marketing 54 (October):20-35.

Oliver. Christine. 1991, "Straiegic Responses to Institutional Processes."Academy of Matiagemetit Review 16(1): 145-179.

O'Reilly, Charles, III and Jennifer Chatman. 1986. '-OrganizationalCommitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compli-ance, Identification, atid Internalization on Prosocial Behavior."Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3): 492-499.

Parasuraman, A. and Dhruv Grewal. 21)00. "The Impact of Technology onthe Quality-Value-Loyalty Chain: A Research Agenda." J/jumal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 28 (I ): 168-174.

Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organizations and Orgatiizatiotial Theor\: Marshfield,MA: Pitman,

and G, R. Salancik, 1978. The Extemat Conttvl of Organizations.New York: Harper & Row,

'Qwest Officials Plead Not Guilty." 2(X)3. Wallstreet Journal, March 6.•n Editic

Perspect

rman 2001. "The Acquisition andProduct Alliances: A Strength-of-

obin, Donald P. md IEthics, and Mark, ilnd Applicatjui '

owley, Timothy I'J' M L \Theory of Stakeholder Itifluei22(4): 887-910,

Saints and Sinners." 1995. The Econotnist 335 (Jui

i (January): 44-58.iMind Dyadic Ties: A NetworkAcademy of Matiagetnent Review

Maignan, Eerrell / CSR

Organ:62,

\\\dcnl\iyr Academy ofMiimigenientReyiew25l\):4i-

n. Sankar and C, B, Bhattiicliuryi], 2001, "Does Doing Good AlwaysLead to Doinj; Butter? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Sociul Re-sponsibility," Journal of Marketing Research 38 (May); 225-243,

, ZeynepCurhan-Caiili, and Vicki Morwitï, 200i, "WithlioldineConsumption: A Soeiiil Dilemma Perspeclivi; on Consumer Boy-colts" Jountal of Consutner Reseaivh 28 (December): 399-417,

Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Sfotl J, Vitell, KumarC. Rallapalli, and KennethL, [Craft, 1996, "The Perteived Role of EUiies and Social responsihil-ity:AScaleDeveloptiietit," tournai o/Bi(ï;iie,ï,r£f/r;c,ï 15:113!-1140,

Slater, Stanley F, and John C, Narver, 1999, "Market-Oriented Is MortThan Being Customer-Led," Strategic Management Journat20:1165-1168,

Stafford, Edwin R,, Michael Jay Polonsky, and Cathy L, Hartman, 2000,"Environmental NGO-Business CollahorLilion and Strategic Bridg-ing: A Case Analy,sis of the Greenpeace-Foron Alliance," Biisines.\-Siralegy and tiie Environment 9:122-135,

Strand, Rich. 1983, "A Systems Paradigm of Organizational Adaptations10 the Social Environment," Acadenw of Management Review S i l l :90-96.

Swanson, Diane L, 1995, -Addressing a Theoretical Prohlem hy Reori-enting the Corporate Social Performance Model," Academy of Man-agement Review 30 ( I ¡: 43-64,

Tajfel, Henri and John C, Turner I9E5, 'The Social Idcndty Theory ofGroup Behavior," In Psvchologv ofltnergroup Relations. VoL 2. Edi,Steven WoTChel and Williani G, Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 7-24,

Ttuini, Joe. 2001, "Upon Further Review—Staples Adjusts Recycled-Content Otîerings in Response to Groups' Protest Campaign," WasteNe»-s6í44y. I.

Turban. Daniel B, and Daniel W, Greening. 1996, "Corporate Social Per-formance and Organiïational Attractiveness to Prospective Employ-ees," Academy of Management Journal 40 (3): 658-Û72,

Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Anil Menon, 1988, "Cause-Related Marketing:A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy,"Jouma! of Marketing 52 (July): 58-74,

Wartick, Steven L, and Philip L. Cochran, 1985, "The Evolution of theCorporate Social Performance Model." Academy of Management Re-view 10 (4): 758-769,

Wasserman, S, and J, Galaskiewicz, 1994, Advance.^ in Social NetworkAnalysis: Research in Ihe Social and Beluiyinral Sciences. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage,

Webb, Deborah J, and Lois A, Mohr, 1998, "A Typology of ConsumerRe-sponses to Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Ctin-cemed.'" Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 17 (2): 226-238,

Welsch, Catherine ¡mt} Ian Wilkinson, 201)2, "Idea Logics and NetworkTheory in Business Marketing." Journal of Business lo BusinessMûrkelina') 0y. 27-48,

Whetten, D, A, and P, Godfrey, eds, 1998. Identity in Organizations: De-veloping Theuiy Through Conversations.Thousänä Oaks,CAt Sage,

Williamson, Oliver E, 1985, The Economie tnstitutiotis of Capitalism.New York: Free Press,

Wood, Donna J, 1991, "Corporate Social Performance Revisited."/\fai/-emy af Management Review 16 (4): 691 -718,

• and Raymond E, Jones. 1995, "Stakeholder Mismatching: ATheoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Per-formance," The International Journal of Organizûlïonal Analysis 3(3): 229-267,

Zeithaml, Carl P, and Valarie A, Zeithaml, 1984, "Environmental Man-agement: Revising the Marketing Perspective."/oiirno/o/Aííirteííng48 (Spring): 46-53,

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Isabelle Maifinun (itnaignan@feweb,vu,till is an assistant pro-fessor of marketing at Che Vrije Uttiversiteii in Amsterdum in theNetherlartds, Her research focuses on corporate social responsi-bility and its ttiarketing dimensions in an international setting.Her work has appeared in the Joumai of the Academy of Market-

ing Science, the Journal of hunialional Business Studies, theJanrmii ofBtisine.ts Research, tbe Journal of Advertising, amongother jottmals artd conference proceedings,

O. C. Ferrell (oc.fetTell@colostate,edu) is chair and a professorof marketing at Colorado State University. His research focuseson marketing ethics and corporate social responsibility. His workhas appeared iti the Joumai of Marketing, ihs Joumai of Market-

ing Research, the Joumai of the Academy of Marketing Science,

tbe Joantiil afPtthlic Policy and Marketing, as weU as other lead-ing journals. In addition, he is the coauthor of Marief/ng,- Con-

cepts and Strategies, Business Ethics: Eihical Decision Making

and Cases, Business and Society: A Strategic Approach lo Cor-

porate Citizenship, Marketing Strategy, and olher textbooks.

Copyright of Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science is the property of Springer Science & Business

Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An ... and Ferrell.pdfCorporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework Isabelle Maignan Vrije Universiteit Amslerdatn,

Documents