We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The attention-based view contends that executives possess limited attentional capabilities that must be carefully allocated across different strategic issues. Although many scholars contend that narrow strategic attention breadth leads to better performance, others argue that broad strategic attention breadth may be more beneficial due to better opportunity scanning. We posit that the relationship between strategic attention breadth and performance will be inverted U-shaped, where strategic attention breadth is positively related to firm performance up to an optimal point, after which firms will see declining benefits due to executive cognitive overload. Furthermore, we propose that executives’ assessment of strategic opportunities will be influenced by the firm’s corporate social responsibility perspective, as the firm’s environmental and ethical commitment may mitigate executive blind spots and enhance opportunity selection. We support our hypotheses with multiple measures of firm performance and a content analysis of annual reports corresponding to a 5-year longitudinal sample of 2,245 S&P 500 firms.
This study explores how corporate social responsibility and risk management intersect in the fashion industry, aiming to promote sustainability. It emphasizes the importance of integrating responsible practices into business strategies to mitigate risks and enhance long-term profitability. By focusing on a multinational fashion supply chain, the study examines real-world examples to highlight the challenges and opportunities in balancing brand image with ethical supply chain management. The findings provide insights into how companies can safeguard their reputation, manage complex supply chains, and contribute positively to sustainability goals in the fashion sector.
Technical summary
This paper investigates the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and risk management within the fashion industry. It conducts an in-depth case study of a prominent multinational fashion supply chain, analyzing 11 suppliers through interviews, observations, and internal documents. The study underscores that integrating CSR principles into risk management strategies helps mitigate supply chain risks and capitalize on business opportunities. It addresses gaps in existing literature by presenting empirical evidence of CSR-driven transformations in the sector, rather than merely documenting unsustainable practices. The study contributes by offering practical insights for fashion businesses aiming to achieve long-term success through sustainable practices. Key implications include the necessity for strategic integration of CSR into operational frameworks to protect corporate image, manage risks effectively, and foster sustainable growth in the competitive fashion marketplace.
Social media summary
From risk management to sustainable success: how corporate social responsibility shapes the future of fashion.
This study addresses endogenous factors related to the strategic planning of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Our findings help explain the paradox: If better CSR always leads to better firm performance, why do so many companies either choose not to engage in CSR or act irresponsibly? Managers may make decisions regarding CSR based on the environment. Some companies may be better served through a proactive CSR strategy; however, others may be unable to achieve better performance through this strategy for a variety of endogenous causes. Our sample included 594 U.S. publicly traded companies with 2,019 firm-year observations. We empirically simulated scenarios where companies selected inappropriate CSR strategies and found that the companies were unable to achieve better firm performance if they did not select appropriate CSR strategies based on their internal and external environment. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.
The ever-increasing disclosure requirements we impose on public companies are, at best, not read, and at worst, are likely reducing the quality of investor decision-making. More environmental and social (ESG) disclosure has been touted as a popular solution to climate change and social issues. However, the evidence suggests this is highly unlikely, as it is very difficult for shareholders to understand the impact of corporate actions and the viable alternatives. Making matters worse, the very information shareholders require is information that assists a firm’s competitors and therefore is information that, if disclosed, has the effect of reducing the incentives for ESG innovation. Shareholders possess few legal tools capable of constructively engaging with corporate behavior. The empirical evidence about these theoretical points is evaluated, along with an examination of the real-world evidence about the outcomes of shareholder ESG interventions.
Corporate governance reforms are increasingly promoted as a method of materially improving social and environmental (ESG) outcomes. This chapter clears up the conceptual confusion about what counts as an action taken primarily for ESG purposes, then considers the incentives, resources, and market constraints that compel corporate actors to avoid unnecessary expenses or lower-value investments. The empirical evidence suggesting corporations are unlikely to voluntarily pursue ESG includes: (1) the revealed preferences of managers, particularly those that emphasize their ESG commitments; (2) the impact of ESG-friendly governance practices on corporate outcomes; and (3) the actual outcomes generated by giving ESG-friendly constituencies (such as socially responsible investors or employees) more power in corporate governance arrangements.
The debate over whether corporate social responsibility should comprise soft law responsibility or legally binding obligations is inadequate to address the legal relationship between corporations and society. The corporate social responsibility movement addresses only an economic agency problem and overlooks a fundamental gap between economic agency and legal agency, or attribution. The former is the problem of potential divergence of interests between a principal and an agent, and the latter concerns the laws regulating the relationship between a person and his or her representative. Corporate social responsibility is meant to respond to the first of these— – the economic agency problem – —as scholars have analyzed at length. However, the legal structures needed to address attribution and legal accountability are still far from established. The chapter proposes an attribution framework that can appropriately address the legal agency problem, in other words, to address corporate social accountability. It suggests that creating a new form of fictitious legal entity could help address this problem by resolving collective action issues.
This article uses Statoil (Equinor since 2018) as a prism to explore some key features and concerns of Western oil companies’ evolving human rights awareness from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s. This period saw the first human rights lawsuits brought against oil companies and a gradual change in their human rights awareness. The article uses insights from the business history literature and new archival material from the oil industry to explain why business ethicists and legal scholars are wrong to argue that the relationship between business and social responsibility, on the one hand, and business and human rights, on the other, are inherently problematic and profoundly disparate due to their divergent historical origins. In so doing, the article offers a historical take on the so-called debate between business human rights (BHR) and corporate social responsibility (CSR), and it repudiates the argument that a so-called minimal understanding of human rights has hindered business from undertaking proactive human rights initiatives. Mapping onto both the business history literature and the BHR–CSR debate, the article aims for a richer understanding of the experiences and ideas that incentivized oil companies to “get serious” about human rights.
This piece recounts the efforts by NGO Sign of Hope (SoH) to rectify human rights violations in South Sudan, which manifested themselves as drinking water pollution by the oil industry. Committed to exposing and remediating this water contamination, SoH was able to prompt the automobile company Daimler’s CSR to engage in extended dialogue with the oil industry stakeholders in Unity State. Despite a tactful use of various methods ranging from cooperation to confrontation, SoH’s campaign did not lead the oil producers to reverse the harm inflicted on the people of Unity State. When SoH tried to hold these companies accountable, SoH had the impression that it was hitting an elastic wall. This piece identifies lessons which may help to counter corporate human rights violations and compensate for the weakness of CSR in fragile states and in the face of corporate irresponsibility.
Beneficence is the act of doing good, while benevolence is being willing to do good. Walmart is cited as a case where, despite its founder’s belief that businesses do sufficient good simply by fueling wealth through commerce and employment, the company is nevertheless highly involved in community projects. Corporate philanthropy may be used strategically to increase future profits, while many corporations see themselves as morally responsible for stakeholders – employees, communities, consumers, and the wider environment – without requiring a clear return on investment. Corporate intervention is discussed historically in terms of apartheid, where some companies applied pressure for social change whereas others felt firms should abide by local norms despite violating human rights. Corporate intervention in the political affairs of Central America are discussed, as well as businesses that supply biased educational materials. The final case describes the sponsorship of an artistic production that becomes politically embroiled and asks what an appropriate level of corporate involvement in the community should be.
This book studied under which conditions the EU and its Member States influence the accountability of transnational corporations that are based in developing and emerging states for their involvement in human rights violations. Five conclusions are drawn. First, there are identifiable corporate concerns about the competitive threat of such corporations. They form a barrier to strengthening the accountability of EU-based corporations. Second, regulation has been adopted only when the ‘perceived interests’ in the EU and its Member States outweigh these concerns. Such interests are vastly different at the EU level and Member State level. Third, regulators have tried to minimise the impact on the competitiveness of their corporations by ‘extending’ their human rights regulations internationally. Fourth, bilateral agreements contain obligations relating to human rights and can serve to contribute to the creation of a ‘thick’ transnational stakeholder consensus. Local litigation is an important element in this process. Finally, there are valuable options to bring cases against corporations from developing and emerging states in EU Member States courts.
Building on recent developments in optimal distinctiveness (OD) research, we identify two dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices – CSR scope conformity and CSR emphasis differentiation – and examine the antecedents of both. We theorize that private ownership and enhanced media coverage may increase scope conformity and emphasis differentiation, while such effects may be contingent on industrial context. In socially contested industries, the impact of private ownership on scope conformity will be mitigated, and the impact of media coverage on scope conformity will be amplified. Meanwhile, in highly competitive industries, the impact of private ownership and media coverage on emphasis differentiation will be mitigated. We test our predictions using a database of 942 Chinese publicly listed firms between 2008 and 2016. Our findings imply that the choice of optimal CSR strategy has to be made in accordance with the embedding context. The multidimensionality view of OD enables firms to better orchestrate firms’ strategic positioning along different dimensions of complex practices, which leads to better customization of societal expectations and the industrial competitive landscape.
Labour market participation by refugees in their new host country is crucial both to the integration process and in terms of reducing public spending on income replacement benefits for refugees. In this article, we explore workplace factors associated with employment of refugees. For this purpose, we use a survey of Danish employers, in light of the fact that with some notable exceptions, the employer role has been somewhat neglected in existing research on labour market integration of refugees. We find that many different workplace factors are associated with employment of refugees. In addition to objective workplace characteristics, existing social responsibility practice, contacts by public employment services and the attitudes and preconceptions of employers towards refugees are of importance.
Human rights and business have long been perceived as two separate domains, with human rights considered to be a shield and protection against the abuse of governmental power. It has only been more recently that private actors such as corporations have come onto the radar of human rights scholars, while those concerned with corporations and corporate responsibility have hardly adopted a human rights perspective. Hence, bringing business and human rights together has not been intuitive for either human rights scholars or corporate responsibility researchers. Accordingly, learning “business and human rights” (BHR) actually means unlearning both business and human rights, at least to some degree. A certain taken-for-grantedness of “business as usual” often provides fertile ground for corporate human rights violations and the inadequacies of the current international legal system that provides the shield for their impunity.
The structure of the global governance system has undergone significant changes in the past few years. From a system governed primarily by global public law institutions established through multilateral treaties, it has metamorphosed into a hybrid field in which a plethora of public, private, and semi-public institutions interact in various ways. The shift to a hybrid global governance architecture presents a complex challenge for legal and political theory, with immense policy implications. In the present article, I respond to this challenge by developing a new model of transnational legal authority, which conceptualizes it as an emergent, network-based phenomenon. According to this model, the emergence of transnational networked authority is dependent on the existence of a multi-layered structure of strongly connected transnational regimes. Key factors in the emergence of networked authority are the normative and compliance synergies that arise through the densification of links across the network. I examine in this context the linkage between the sociological and the jurisprudential aspects of the authority of private transnational regulatory regimes, and develop the idea of ‘network grounding’, which emphasizes the relational structure of private transnational legality. I illustrate the thesis by reviewing findings from a network analysis of transnational corporate social responsibility networks.
Critical scholarship often presents corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a reflection or embodiment of neoliberalism. Against this sort of sweeping political characterization we argue that CSR can indeed be considered a liberal concept but that it embodies a “varieties of liberalism.” Building theoretically on the work of Michael Freeden on liberal languages, John Ruggie and Karl Polanyi on embedded forms of liberalism, and Michel Foucault on the distinction between classical liberalism and neoliberalism, we provide a conceptual treatment and mapping of the ideological positions that constitute the bulk of modern scholarly CSR debate. Thus, we distinguish between embedded liberalism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and re-embedded liberalism. We develop these four orientations in turn and show how they are engaged in “battles of ideas” over the meaning and scope of corporate responsibilities—and how they all remain relevant for an understanding of contemporary debates and developments in the field of CSR and corporate sustainability.
This chapter considers the question of whether corporations have positive obligations in relation to fundamental rights and, if so, how to determine the substantive content of those obligations. The chapter examines justifications for the ‘negative obligations model’ which asserts that non-state actors only have negative obligations – to avoid harming – fundamental rights. I show why the negative/positive obligation distinction is not adequate to distinguish the obligations of the state from those of non-state actors and also provide positive justifications for why non-state actors and, particularly, corporations should have such obligations. The multi-factoral model, suitably modified, I argue complimented by a seven-step test – instead of proportionality – provides a structured analytical process for legally determining the substantive content of the positive obligations of corporations. Lastly, I consider the legal instantiation of positive obligations through the courts in South Africa and the legislature in India. The multi-factoral model, I suggest, could be helpful in systematising and guiding these developments.
The success and competitiveness of an organization recruiting the emerging workforce i.e., millennials can be ascribed in part to the organization's corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement. This study explores the impact of organizational CSR on Nigerian millennials' joining intention through CSR motive perceptions: CSR-based organizational attractiveness (CSR-based OA) and perceived altruism (PA). To examine the empirical relationship among variables, data were obtained from respondents who were seeking employment or in-between jobs. Results revealed that CSR-based OA and PA significantly mediate the relationship between CSR and millennial joining intention. Findings present a unique perspective that significantly expands the literature. The implications of results are discussed and recommendations to managers are presented.
Concluding that even if economists cannot agree why shareholders should have priority, they are nevertheless agreed that this is the case, the chapter goes on to examine the legal position of different stakeholders in the context of the company by referring to the thorough reform process observed in the UK some two decades ago. Noting then that, despite such a comprehensive debate, the enlightened shareholder value solution (ESV) arrived at remains controversial, and recognising that, in any case, such formal statutory provisions by no means exhaust the arrangements in place for corporate governance, the chapter goes on to look at the hugely influential development of essentially self-regulatory, best-practice based arrangements that are now a feature of stock markets throughout the world. Insofar as the experience of the jurisdiction from which this approach emerged has not been uniformly positive, the chapter proceeds to examine the alternative approach of a strict rule-based approach to corporate governance, taking the US as an example. Despite the problems associated with any alternative, these apparent limits perhaps explain the ongoing and indeed intensified interest in the notion of corporate social responsibility. The chapter goes on to seek clarity in a definition of CSR which draws a distinction between what society requires corporations to do and what it is willing to regard as optional. Noting, however, that encouraging legislators to take firm action in the face of the fear of capital flight can be difficult in the absence of some clear evidence of a problem (and even then, in some recent cases), the question is then whether the recent enthusiasm for environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting is a reasonable way forward.
Globally, organizations are increasingly embracing corporate social responsibility (CSR) to strengthen competitive advantage. Although CSR is recognized to be context-sensitive, the literature is still lacking studies that examine CSR in different contexts, particularly non-western ones. Our study adds to a deeper understanding of CSR in Vietnam by identifying the predictors of CSR attitudes of business students. Vietnam has rich cultural, social, and economic characteristics that offer new theoretical perspectives and insights on the contextual nature of CSR. Our findings showed that CSR attitudes related positively to idealism and student seniority, and negatively to materialism and male students. A positive CSR–relativism relationship was uncovered. Spirituality related positively to the importance of CSR to business sustainability and negatively to CSR's importance to short-term competitiveness. The findings have theoretical and practical implications on the understanding and practice of CSR that would benefit CSR researchers, business organizations, and education institutions.
Ten years after the publication of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), implementation efforts are in full swing. Companies in particular have used their existing corporate social responsibility (CSR) structures to make sense of and implement Pillar II of the UNGPs. This process has led to a co-optation of the business and human rights (BHR) agenda. One manifestation of such co-optation is the instrumentalization of CSR to confront and undermine the growing trend towards binding BHR legislation. Accordingly, this contribution conceptualizes Pillar II implementation as a process of domestication, co-optation and confrontation of the BHR agenda. It makes sense of this process by juxtaposing it with long-standing critique against CSR put forth particularly by critical management scholars, raising the question whether CSR is indeed well-equipped to drive BHR implementation efforts within companies.