Corporate social responsibility and strategic management: the prospects for converging discourses

Corporate social responsibility andstrategic management: the prospectsfor converging discoursesSimon Brooks*University of Glamorgan Business School, UK

� The discourse of strategy is an ongoing project, as evidenced by recent attempts to intro-duce a sociological element to research and practice by the European academy inresponse to perhaps more traditional epistemologies rooted in rational economicthought.

� This paper proposes that the development of strategy from its rational roots has seenincreasing prospects for convergence with the developing discourse of corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) through notions of stakeholder management, knowledge manage-ment and the meta-narratives of collaboration and complexity.

� It is further proposed that such a convergence offers prospects for a holistic approach toCSR arguably lacking in the predominantly discipline-based lenses currently deployed.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, November 2005

strategy as a rational, top-down, linear processhas been the subject of detailed critique fromwithin the field for some time. Even the mostcursory examination of the strategy literaturewill show that commentators, calling upon arange of disciplines, have critiqued the ratio-nal approaches to strategic management thatmanifest themselves in strategic plans presuming to predict and somehow managefuture eventualities (see, for example,Mintzberg, 1984; Simon, 1987; Stacey, 1993).A wider critique of rational detachment andover-reliance on quantification in strategy is most recently evident in recent calls fromthe European Academy to conceive of strategymore overtly as a social practice (see, forexample, Whittington, 2004).

An examination of the literatures referringto corporate social responsibility (CSR) revealsa breadth of disciplinary interest that, whileperhaps providing evidence of the importance

Strat. Change 14: 401–411 (2005)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jsc.731 Strategic Change

* Correspondence to: Simon Brooks, University of Glamorgan Business School, The University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

The development of strategic managementfrom its militaristic roots through to its man-agerial conception as a process of planning,deliberate design and positioning of the orga-nization, to best exploit markets, might under-standably give the impression to externalobservers that it is a discourse dominated byrational economic thought. It would followthat its philosophical underpinnings mighttherefore be assumed to be aligned with neo-classical economics and its attendant rational-ity. Indeed, it is undeniable that much strategicanalysis shares language and philosophy withorganizational economic analysis. However,

402 Simon Brooks

or at least currency of the topic, does serve torender the search for a coherent discourseproblematic. For example, there are consider-able literatures in the fields of marketing man-agement, morality and ethics, accountancyand audit, political economy and the environ-ment. A full examination of the variety of academic perspectives brought to bear on corporate social responsibility is beyond thescope of this paper, however, a definition ofCSR may be helpful.

The philosophies of corporate and individ-ual philanthropy predate the current interestin CSR by hundreds or perhaps thousands ofyears (Eberstadt, 1973; Maclagan, 1998).However, it is generally accepted that the firstrecorded use of the actual label ‘corporatesocial responsibility’ was by Bowen in 1953.Since then the field has developed sporadi-cally, but recent years have seen an increasedattention given to CSR both in the academyand evidenced by more populist texts on corporate relations with society (see, forexample, Monbiot, 2000; Klein, 2000; Hertz,2001). Definitions of CSR are now many(Hopkins, 2003), but the following, fromLantos (2001), is broadly representative of theemerging field and can be taken as an appro-priate starting point for this paper.

An organisation’s obligation to maximiseits positive impact and minimise its negative effects in being a contributingmember to society, with concern forsociety’s long run needs and wants. CSRmeans being a good steward of society’seconomic and human resources. (p. 600)

This paper argues that what has becomeincreasingly evident in the strategy discoursesis a number of trends that show a clear potential for convergence with the emergingpractice and theory of CSR.

The remainder of the paper is arranged asfollows. First, I set out the understanding ofstrategy underpinning the paper. Second, Ioffer a brief overview of the development ofthe strategy debate. Third, I discuss in moredetail how significant elements in the strategy

discourse demonstrate convergence with CSR.Finally, the conclusions offer thoughts for thefuture development of these themes.

Defining strategy

As with most academic fields there is thepotential for a heated debate over definitions.Strategy is no exception of course, indeed inthe colourful language of Henry Mintzberg‘The word strategy has been around for a longtime. Managers now use it both freely andfondly.’ (Mintzberg et al., 1998). In this paper,however, the definition of strategy and its etymological derivatives does carry someimportance, as there is a particular possibilityof confusion in relation to corporate socialresponsibility.

The word strategy hasbeen around for a long

time. Managers now use itboth freely and fondly

The broad definition assumed in this paperis simply that ‘strategic’ management is con-cerned with the acquisition of sustainablecompetitive advantage for the whole organi-zation or business without conferring pre-eminence on any particular function such asfinance, marketing, human resource manage-ment and so on. We should remain aware,however, that there is some work in the studyof CSR that takes the word ‘strategic’ as asynonym for ‘instrumental’ (see, for example,Lantos, 2001). This conception of ‘strategic’ asshorthand for actions designed to bring aboutsome desired consequence for an organizationis not the conception used here, although abrief discussion of this usage is worthwhile toillustrate the difference from the ‘holistic’view.Essentially when the term ‘strategic CSR’ isemployed in the instrumental sense, it isintended to mean an action (such as a well-publicized donation to charity or similar act of


social responsibility) that is designed to, forexample, garner favourable publicity andenhance the brand image of an organization.The point being that such an action mightreside in the domain of, in this example, mar-keting without necessarily being an integralpart of the organization’s overall strategy inthe holistic sense. A student of marketingmight counter that a strong brand is tanta-mount to ‘strategy’but in fact marketing, whileimportant, is simply one of the many functionsthat can contribute to the overall strategicsuccess of an organization.

For us to take a strategic view of CSR is totake a holistic view of CSR and should not beconfused with the deployment of the word‘strategic’ as a handy replacement for ‘instru-mental’. It follows that the claim that CSR is astrategic issue is to claim that it should be con-sidered as an integrated practice across theorganization and should not be thought of asthe domain of any particular function.

The progression of the strategy discourse

The evolution of the strategy discourse is anongoing project and it is clearly beyond thescope of a single paper to give this a compre-hensive and detailed treatment. Indeed, anyattempt to simplify the progression of thestrategy debate risks doing violence to theundoubted complexities in its development.However, we can perhaps agree with thegeneral sentiments of Wilson and Jarzabkowski(2004) that strategy has moved from its origi-nal economic conception as a method ofdetermining long-term goals and designingand planning an appropriate strategy, throughan increasing focus on, broadly, a processualview of strategy, to a nascent practice-basedperspective (see also Whittington, 1996,2002).

The idea of strategy as a rational process hasdeveloped from and through the writings of,among others, Selznick (1957), Chandler(1962) and Ansoff (1965), all of whom in someform took as their underlying assumption theidea that organizations can deliberately design

structures and plans to match their internalstates to the external environment and there-fore control the implementation of strategy.While the implicit underlying rationality ofthis view was not without its early critics (see,for example, Simon, 1960; Cyert and March,1963), these approaches enjoyed pre-emi-nence through the 1960s and 1970s andindeed were reinforced by the work ofMichael Porter in the 1980s and beyond. Thedistinctive contribution of Porter was to bringeconomic content to the debate and add aportfolio of analytical techniques that allowedat least the perception of a scientific approachto strategic management (Porter, 1980, 1985).Crucially though, the fundamental positivistassumptions of the ‘planning’ approachremained in place, including the flawed sepa-ration between both conception and imple-mentation of strategy, and organization(internal) and its environment (external).

Partly rooted in critiques of the essentiallyrational approaches to strategy outlinedabove, there has subsequently been an increas-ing focus on more process-based and socio-logically informed approaches to strategy. Anumber of parallel themes can be identified ashaving enjoyed attention in varying degreesfrom the 1980s through to today, such as afocus on culture and power, a focus on theentrepreneur, a focus on learning and a focuson emergence and complexity. A meta-narrative that informs all of these approaches,with the possible exception of emergence andcomplexity, is the move towards a considera-tion of the resources and competences of theorganization as sources of competitive advan-tage. Wernerfelt (1984), Prahalad and Hamel(1990) and Barney (1991), among others,developed the concept that tangible and intan-gible resources, encompassing social and cul-tural relationships and the ability to learn, arecritical determinants of competitive advan-tage. In a very closely related development,we also saw the importance of organizationalknowledge and its effective managementemerging as a distinct field in the 1990s (see, for example, Quinn, 1992; Nonaka andTakeuchi, 1995).The inimitability of resources

Corporate social responsibility and strategic management 403


404 Simon Brooks

and knowledge by competitors is often citedas crucial to the robustness of resources as asource of competitive advantage. Organiza-tional culture has also received significantattention since it can be seen as informingsocial interactions and relationships in organi-zations and therefore impacting upon strategyand decision-making (Mintzberg et al., 1998).The key themes in the cultural strategy litera-ture are summarized by Mintzberg et al.(1998) as being concerned with dominantvalues in organizations, decision-makingstyles, resistance to and facilitation of changein organizations and also with culture as amediating factor in the failure of merger andacquisition activities or joint ventures.

Over perhaps the last 15 years we can alsodiscern the narrative of ‘collaboration’ begin-ning to challenge the fundamentally competi-tive assumptions brought to strategy by theepistemologies of its rational economic roots.Somewhat ironically, the rationally informedwork on organizational value-chains by Porter(1985) can be seen in many ways as laying thefoundations for the recognition of the impor-tance of collaboration, since the logical con-clusion of its application is often to outsourcea range of non-value-adding organizationalactivities. This outcome therefore logicallyimplies a relationship of collaboration with thesuppliers of these outsourced activities, andhas been a contributing factor in the increas-ing emergence of strategic alliances. Thesethemes are discussed in the work of Hamel et al. (1989), among others, and have devel-oped into the conception of a firm as beingpart of a wider set of linkages where strategyis ‘about understanding knowledge flows in acomplex network of relationships’ (Venkatramand Subramaniam, 2002).

Closely related to the notion of firms as partof a network of relationships has been thedevelopment of the ‘stakeholder perspective’of strategic management. Although Freeman(1984) is often credited with having broughtthe concept of stakeholder management to theattention of the strategy field (see, forexample, Bowie, 2002), the roots of stake-holder theory can be traced back to the work

of Berle and Means (1932) and subsequentlythrough more recent strategy writing such asthat of Ansoff in 1965. In many senses Ansoffwas a true antecedent of Freeman in that heidentified the instrumental importance ofstakeholders for strategic managers, althoughhe perhaps placed more weight on theprimacy of shareholders than later proponentsof stakeholder theory.

More recently, the last decade has seen theemergence of the chaos and complexityschools of thought on strategy. Using largelymathematics and natural sciences as sourcedomains for analogy and process, managementthinkers such as Nonaka (1988), Stacey (1993,1996, 2000) and Pascale et al. (2000) haveexplored and promoted the notion that orga-nizations are complex adaptive systems exist-ing in changing environments. This places apremium on the importance of organizationallinkages with its environment in order that theorganization can remain appropriately sensi-tive to changes. The complexity approach dis-cards the Newtonian emphasis on reduction,order, control and predictability found in rational approaches to strategy.

The last decade has seenthe emergence of thechaos and complexityschools of thought on

strategy

Finally, the strategy debate, particularly inEurope, has recently witnessed calls forresearchers to adopt an eclectic approach in are-engagement with theoretical rationalitywhile acknowledging the contribution of thepost-modern attention to context and narra-tive (see, for example, Whittington, 2004).According to this view, the focus should nowbe on the practice of strategy, conceiving ofthis practice as a sociological activity in anattempt to reconcile theory with managerialrealities. This emerging debate is clearly of


interest for those seeking to locate CSR as astrategic concept, since social responsibilityalmost by definition has a societal and there-fore sociological component.

I now consider how a number of strands inthe development of the strategy discourseshow potential for convergence with the dis-courses of corporate social responsibility.

Corporate social responsibility and strategy

Despite the undoubted simplifications in the brief account of the development of thestrategy discourse there are distinct aspects of what is now an eclectic debate that showclear prospects for a convergence with theemergent corporate social responsibility discourses.

Perhaps the most obvious example of anelement of the strategy discourse sharingphilosophical roots with CSR is the develop-ment of stakeholder management as part ofthe canon of strategic management. The ideathat organizations have stakeholders on whomthey depend and who depend on, or can beaffected by, them in some senses pre-dateswhat seems to be a relatively recent expansionof interest in CSR in the management litera-ture. As noted above, Freeman in 1984 iswidely credited with bringing the strategicpossibilities of effective stakeholder manage-ment to the strategy discourse and his con-ception of stakeholder management is worthexamination as being representative of what isessentially an instrumental view of stakehold-ers. Freeman saw stakeholders as representingthreats and opportunities depending upontheir level of power and ability to impact uponstrategies. Similarly, Donaldson and Preston(1995) advanced the view that stakeholdertheory is strongly normative, instrumental andmanagerial. We can see here that the senti-ments, if not the language, of rationalapproaches to strategy are strongly echoed.Taking this instrumental approach to stake-holders mirrors the conception of CSR as anopportunity for organizations to, for example,manage risk, enhance brand perception or

ameliorate stakeholders’ needs. This approachto CSR could be broadly characterized as ateleological approach and it is advocated byelements of the academy (see, for example,Lantos, 2001), populist writers such asGrayson (2004) or Leipziger (2003), and orga-nizations such as Business in the Community.Does this therefore mean that stakeholdertheory can only be ‘partially employed todefine corporate social responsibilities’(Kaptein and Wempe, 2002)? Perhaps up to apoint, but there are calls within the stake-holder literature to acknowledge an ethicaland altruistic component in the ongoingproject to construct a unified stakeholdertheory (see, for example, Jones et al., 2002).Therefore we can see convergence betweenstakeholder management and CSR not only asmanagerial instruments, but also as vehiclesfor altruism and business ethics of a non-teleological genre.

Culture and CSR

The cultural school of management sees strat-egy formation and implementation as aprocess of social interaction based on sharedbeliefs (Mintzberg et al., 1998). Culture inorganizations has also been described byMintzberg et al. as ‘the soul of its physicalbody’ (1998: 266) and by Pettigrew as ‘expres-sive social tissue’ (1985: 44), descriptions thatshow how closely strategic notions of culturein organizations are related both to values andsocial links. Of course social and cultural linksdo not stop at the ‘boundaries’ of the organi-zation, and socially responsible activitiesexplicitly cross organizational boundaries aswell, linking the organization with the societyin which it is located.

Arguably, CSR implies a view of the organi-zation as being embedded in society and furthermore, it is likely that the successfulimplementation of CSR would depend uponparticular values being shared between orga-nizational members and the communities withwhich they engage.

Closely related to the idea that culture canprovide an inimitable source of competitive



406 Simon Brooks

advantage is the notion that the managementof tacit knowledge in organizations is in somesense the operational expression of this. It isof course an over-simplification to see only thehuman resources inside the organization as asource of competitive advantage throughknowledge. As Kogut and Zander point out,inimitability of competitive advantage comesfrom the organization as a ‘social community’where employees become a ‘moral order’(1996: 515) and it is axiomatic that social com-munities with a moral compass of some kindcannot, and do not, operate in isolation fromother social communities and their moralframes. In other words, the cultural strengthof an organization, and by extension thesource of competitive advantage throughknowledge, are inseparable from its links withsociety, and CSR could in turn be seen as theoperational expression of these links.Again wesee that CSR is not a ‘bolt-on’ addition to strat-egy but increasingly a natural bedfellow.

Collaboration and CSR

The established narrative of collaboration instrategy is clearly fertile ground for a discus-sion of convergence with the principles ofCSR. The idea that organizations do notoperate in isolation from interactions with customers, suppliers, competitors and otheractors is very closely related to the develop-ment of stakeholder and cultural approachesto strategy. However, commentators on, andpractitioners of, strategy have been quick toascribe a distinct discourse to the practice andtheory of collaboration and negotiation instrategy. For some such as Mintzberg et al.(1998) this is labelled as part of a larger discourse of ‘power’ in strategy, but for manythe manifestation of a collaborative view inorganizations is made real through strategicalliances, including joint ventures, partner-ships, networks and so on. Bringing some ofthe principles underpinning successfulalliances between businesses to the relation-ship between business and society may evenlead to a more transparent practice of socialresponsibility and therefore lead to an increase

in trust between organization and society. Forexample, many alliances begin with an aware-ness of joint interests (Astley, 1984), followedby a subsequent contractual arrangement toenter into a formal alliance in order to furthersuch joint interests. Implicit in such arrange-ments is the acceptance that there should bea ‘win–win’ situation but that cooperation hasits limits. Such alliances are also characterizedby an acceptance that there will not always beharmony and that learning from each other isparamount in order that an understanding isreached about how the strategic objectives ofone partner affect the objectives of the other(Hamel et al., 1989).

How then might these principles be appliedto socially responsible relationships? First,perhaps an understanding of joint interestsbetween a given organization and those withwhom it interacts in society should be moreopenly acknowledged. Such an acknowledge-ment of joint interests might be antithetical tothose who would see calls for increased CSRas a manifestation of anti-capital sentiment insociety, but the fact remains that CSR is nowa significant element of corporate and societalactivity, embedded in the existing political andstructural relationship between capital andsociety. Second, an arrangement to engagewith society in a socially responsible mannershould be subject to a transparent, perhapseven contractual, understanding. This couldmake clear the details of socially responsibleengagements, the limits and boundaries ofsuch engagements and importantly, how thestrategic objectives of each party will be real-ized. Such transparency should go some waytowards alleviating the suspicion, voiced bysome, that organizations are gaining advantagedisproportionate to the efforts they put intosocially responsible activities (see, forexample, Frankental, 2001). The concerns ofthose critical of CSR as an activity thatdamages shareholder value, such as Friedman(1970), especially when practiced by publiclyquoted companies, may also be addressed bya clear statement of what strategic advantagean organization hopes to derive from itssocially responsible activities.


In summary, at a philosophical level, a nego-tiated and collaborative approach to strategywould appear to offer more hope of congru-ence with CSR than the modernist rationalapproaches to strategy rooted in the episte-mology and language of competitive behav-iour. Not only this, but taking the practice ofstrategic alliances as a template for the practice of CSR offers the prospect of futureconvergence between CSR and strategy at apractical level.

Complexity thinking and CSR

There is a growing body of strategy literaturethat characterizes organizations as complexadaptive systems existing in symbiosis withtheir environment.This conception of strategyemphasizes the importance of continuousinteraction with, and adaptation to, the exter-nal environment, whether competitive, politi-cal, cultural, social or technological. Thisapproach to strategy has used the sciences ofchaos and complexity, originally developed innatural sciences, to shed light on the complexand interwoven world of organizations.

A growing body ofstrategy literature

characterizesorganizations as complex

adaptive systems

The idea that an organization should try to‘fit’ its external environment can of course befound in the design and planning approach tostrategy. However, those employing complex-ity theory to critique these approaches to strat-egy have pointed out that simplistic models ofthe competitive environment, such as themany matrices beloved of rational strategy, donot come close to representing the truecomplex landscape in which an organizationoperates. A further central tenet of complexity theory in management is that

organizations are self-organizing but that inorder to survive the organization must con-tinue to interact with its environment andadapt appropriately. Not only this, but theorganization should possess the ‘requisitevariety’ of potential organizational responsesto a changing environment in order to adapt(Stacey, 2003).

What then does this mean for CSR? There areclearly many parallels between stakeholderinvolvement, the development of networksand collaborative relationships, and the con-ception of organizations as complex adaptivesystems. However, I propose that an oftenover-looked element of complexity in the orga-nizational landscape is the existence of societyand organizational links to it. It could beargued that an organization has to have acentral core of stability, which may forexample be provided by its resources, knowl-edge or competences. These factors may con-tribute to self-organization, but the boundarywith the organizational environment may bein a state of flux. It is in this boundary statethat the organization interacts and adapts withits environment. A way in which the organiza-tion can remain sufficiently sensitive to itsenvironment is through the practice of CSR.Organizations involved in social responsibilitycan gain knowledge of their competitive andmarket environment through their inter-actions, as well as improving trust betweenorganization and society. Such is the complexnature of the feedback loops between organi-zation and society that one might suggest thatincreasing trust and reputation may decreasethe prospect of environmental turbulence.Societies that trust the organizations engagingwith them are arguably less likely to set out todisturb that organization.This is hardly a novelconcept for the strategist, but the point is thatthe language of complexity reinforces theconcept for us. Similarly, the notion of organi-zational fit to its stakeholders is found in otherdiscourses, not least rational strategy, but thepoint made here is that complexity theory is aparticular lens employed increasingly in strat-egy and when viewed through this lens, thestrategy discourse offers clear prospects for



408 Simon Brooks

congruence with the principles and practiceof CSR.

It is also possible to argue that the idea of‘requisite variety’ (Pascale et al., 2000) in orga-nizations offers links to CSR due to the prac-tice of ensuring diversity in organizationsthrough the adoption of policies to encouragediversity of age, gender, race or culture. Suchdiversity translates into the concept of requi-site variety since diversity offers the prospectof a more diverse and varied approach toproblem-solving, including problems pre-sented by a dynamic and complex externalenvironment.

The ‘sociological turn’ and CSR

The growing call from the European academyto overtly ‘. . . draw on the rich resources ofsociology to engage more directly with strat-egy as a social practice’ (Whittington, 2004:62) is now examined.

In a sense this broadly sociological focusmight be seen as the logical culmination ofmuch that has already been discussed, such asan increasing focus on stakeholders, theacknowledgement of the importance of col-laboration, the concentration on culture andtacit knowledge as sources of competitiveadvantage, and finally the growing attentionpaid to complexity. If there was a need toascribe a ‘meta-narrative’ to these threads thenperhaps sociology could provide the source.

In terms of finding a link between strategyand corporate social responsibility, some workhas already been started by Starkey andTempest (2004), although it should be notedthat they are basing their thoughts on theconcept of social capital. It is not suggestedthat ‘social capital’ and ‘corporate socialresponsibility’ are synonymous terms, butthere are undoubted parallels between thearguments advanced by Starkey and Tempestand those presented here proposing a con-nection between strategy and CSR. Socialcapital is essentially the ‘. . . resources embed-ded within, available through, and derivedfrom the network of relationships possessedby an individual or social unit’ (Nahapiet and

Ghoshal, 1998). Given that organizations aresocial groups, it is logical to assume that theycan benefit from the resources represented bysocial capital. The idea of reciprocity betweensocietal actors is central to social capital andthis can result in the transfer of knowledge,goodwill, innovation and learning. The way inwhich such reciprocal connections betweenorganizations and society are actually madeoperational is through the practice of corpo-rate social responsibility. Some work hasalready been undertaken in applying a socio-logical lens to CSR in attempts to examine itssocial construction among a number of actors(Brooks, 2004).

In summary, the nascent move in the strat-egy discourse towards a practice-based socio-logical paradigm offers exciting possibilitiesfor the theory and practice of CSR to becomea part of the theory and practice of strategy.

Conclusions

This paper has attempted to review the devel-opment of the discourse of strategy and strate-gic management. It has highlighted a numberof areas in which strategic management andCSR appear to offer prospects for a converg-ing discourse, however, this should not beseen as an attempt to ‘claim’ CSR for yetanother field of study, in this case strategy.Arguments for academics and practitioners tobegin considering CSR as a phenomenon use-fully studied from a holistic perspective, andbest practiced as a strategic activity have beendiscussed. What then does this mean for thedevelopment of the respective fields of CSRand strategy?

First, CSR could benefit from being examined as a holistic concept. This is not todeny the importance of the multidisciplinaryapproaches currently being taken, but in factto offer a home to such an approach. A moreovert connection between CSR and strategymay also help to deflect potential criticismthat it is an activity most readily associatedwith public relations and with little real sub-stance behind it. In a sense this is part of mycall for notions of ‘strategic’ CSR to be more


than just handy shorthand for ‘instrumental’CSR.

It should be recognized, however, that notall commentators on CSR would welcome anassociation with strategy. It could be arguedby critical academics that through admitting acommonality between CSR and strategy, thedominant managerial ideology associated bysome with the agency model of shareholderprimacy might attempt to colonize the emerg-ing discourse of CSR. This very much dependson how strategy is defined. As highlightedearlier, the definition of strategy employedhere is not intended to convey allegiance withany particular model of management, and cer-tainly not wedded to the rational economicunderpinnings of earlier conceptions of strat-egy. Indeed it is possible to argue that CSRneeds a core discourse and a holistic, strategicapproach might offer this. In fact we mightreflect that CSR continuing as a potentiallyfragmented field risks being robbed of its crit-ical potency. If it is accepted that the CSR dis-course, like any other when viewed through aFoucauldian lens, is the locus of attempts toassert truth claims and either create or per-petuate a power hegemony, then the morefragmented the academic field, the more likelyit is that powerful interests will be able to steeror even appropriate the discourse for theirends.

Second, the prospects for strategy seem tolie in the direction of a greater sociologicalfocus on research, in parallel with the clearcalls for a practice-based approach, particu-larly from the European Academy. Corporatesocial responsibility has the potential toprovide just such a focus on practice, espe-cially as a response to calls to link social capitaland strategy (Starkey and Tempest, 2004). It isdifficult to deny that populist notions of CSRhave captured the imagination of society andmanagers in a way that the perhaps somewhat‘drier’ proposal for ‘stakeholder management’has not. The label ‘corporate social responsi-bility’ seems to be acquiring currency andmomentum. In this light it seems an opportu-nity might exist for researchers to begin tounite notions of collaboration, dealing with

stakeholders and dealing with complexityunder the banner of a construct that has clearpotential to offer the much needed practicalfocus called for in the current debate.

Biographical note

Simon Brooks is a Senior Lecturer in strategyat the University of Glamorgan BusinessSchool, and head of the Welsh Institute forCompetitive Advantage. His interests includethe strategic management of corporate socialresponsibility, and business ethics.

References

Ansoff HI. 1965. Corporate Strategy. McGraw-Hill:New York.

Astley WG. 1984. Toward an appreciation of collective strategy. Academy of ManagementReview 9(3): 526–533.

Barney JB. 1991. Firm resources and sustainedcompetitive advantage. Journal of Management17(1): 99–120.

Berle A, Means G. 1932. Private property and themodern corporation. In The Blackwell Guide toBusiness Ethics, Bowie NE (ed.). Blackwell:Oxford.

Bowen HR. 1953. Social Responsibilities of theBusinessman. Harper and Row: New York.

Bowie NE (ed.). 2002. The Blackwell Guide toBusiness Ethics. Blackwell: Oxford.

Brooks SB. 2004. The practice and construction ofcorporate social responsibility among small tomedium sized enterprises in South Wales. Con-temporary Wales 17: 162–177.

Chandler AD. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chap-ters in the History of Industrial Enterprise. MITPress: Cambridge, MA.

Cyert RM, March JG. 1963. A Behavioural Theoryof the Firm. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Donaldson T, Preston L. 1995. The stakeholdertheory of the corporation: concepts, evidenceand implications. Academy of ManagementReview 20(1): 85–112.

Eberstadt N. 1973. What history tells us about corporate responsibility. Business and SocietyReview 7: 76–81.

Frankental P. 2001. Corporate social responsibility:a P.R. invention? Corporate Communications:An International Journal 6(1): 18–23.



410 Simon Brooks

Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management:A Stake-holder Approach. Pitman: London.

Friedman M. 1970.The social responsibility of busi-ness is to increase its profits. New York TimesMagazine, 13th September.

Grayson D. 2004. Corporate Social Opportunity:Seven Steps to Make CSR Work for Your Busi-ness. Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield.

Hamel G, Doz YL, Prahalad CK. 1989. Collaboratewith your competitors and win. Harvard Busi-ness Review Jan/Feb: 133–139.

Hertz N. 2001. Silent Takeover: Global Capitalismand the Death of Democracy. Heinemann:London.

Hopkins M. 2003. The Planetary Bargain:CorporateSocial Responsibility Matters. Earthscan: London.

Jones TM, Wicks AC, Freeman RE. 2002. Stake-holder theory: the state of the art. In The Black-well Guide to Business Ethics, Bowie NE (ed.).Blackwell: Oxford.

Kaptein M, Wempe J. 2002. The BalancedCompany: A Theory of Corporate Integrity.Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Klein N. 2000. No Logo: Taking Aim at the BrandBullies. Flamingo, (Harper Collins): London.

Kogut B, Zander U. 1996. What firms do? Coordi-nation, identity and learning. OrganizationScience 7(5): 507–518.

Lantos G. 2001. The boundaries of strategic corpo-rate social responsibility. Journal of ConsumerMarketing 18(7): 595–630.

Liepziger D. 2003. The Corporate ResponsibilityCode Book. Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield.

Maclagan P. 1998. Management and Morality.Sage: London.

Mintzberg H. 1984. The Rise and Fall of StrategicPlanning. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Mintzberg H, Ahlstrand B, Lampel J. 1998. StrategySafari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds ofStrategic Management. Prentice-Hall: London.

Monbiot G. 2000. Captive State: The CorporateTakeover of Britain. Macmillan: London.

Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S. 1998. Social capital, intel-lectual capital and the organizational advantage.Academy of Management Review 23: 242–266.

Nonaka I. 1988. Creating organizational order outof chaos: self renewal in Japanese firms. Califor-nia Management Review 30(3): 57–74.

Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. 1995. The Knowledge Cre-ating Company: How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation. OxfordUniversity Press: New York.

Pascale RT, Millemann M, Gioja L. 2000. Surfing the Edge of Chaos:The Laws of Nature and theNew Laws of Business. Crown Business: NewYork.

Pettigrew AM. 1985. The Awakening Giant:Continuity and Change in Imperial ChemicalIndustries. Blackwell: Oxford.

Porter ME. 1980. Competitive Strategy:Techniquesfor Analysing Industries and Competitors. FreePress: New York.

Porter ME. 1985. Competitive Advantage:Creatingand Sustaining Superior Performance. FreePress: New York.

Prahalad CK, Hamel G. 1990.The core competenceof the corporation. Harvard Business ReviewMay/Jun: 79–91.

Quinn JB. 1992. Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowl-edge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry.Free Press: New York.

Selznick P. 1957. Leadership in administration: asociological interpretation. In Strategy Safari: AGuided Tour Through the Wilds of StrategicManagement, Mintzberg H, Ahlstrand B, LampelJ (eds). Prentice-Hall: London.

Simon HA. 1960. The New Science of ManagementDecision. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Simon HA. 1987. Making management decisions:the role of intuition and emotion. Academy ofManagement Executives 1(Feb): 57–64.

Stacey R. 1993. Strategic Management and Organ-isational Dynamics. Pitman: London.

Stacey R. 1996. Management and the science ofcomplexity: if organisational life in non-linear,can business strategies prevail? Research Tech-nology Management 39(3).

Stacey R. 2000. Complexity and Management:Fador Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking?Routledge, London.

Stacey R. 2003. Strategic Management and Organ-isational Dynamics, 4th edn. Pitman: London.

Starkey K, Tempest S. 2004. Bowling along: strate-gic management and social capital. EuropeanManagement Review 1: 78–83.

Venkatram N, Subramaniam M. 2002. Theorisingthe future of strategy: questions for shaping strat-egy research in the knowledge economy. InHandbook of Strategy and Management, Petti-grew A, Thomas H, Whittington R (eds). Sage:London.

Wernerfelt B. 1984. The resource based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5:171–180.


Whittington R. 1996. Strategy as practice. LongRange Planning 29: 731–735.

Whittington R. 2002. The work of strategizing andorganizing: for a practice perspective. StrategicOrganization 1: 119–127.

Whittington R. 2004. Strategy after modernism:recovering practice. European ManagementReview 1: 62–68.

Wilson DC, Jarzabkowski P. 2004. Thinking andacting strategically: new challenges for interro-gating strategy. European Management Review1: 14–20.



Corporate social responsibility and strategic management: the prospects for converging discourses

Documents

Transcript of Corporate social responsibility and strategic management: the prospects for converging discourses