Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:08:32.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embedded Versus Peripheral CSR From the Perspective of CSR Professionals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Katherine V. Smith  and
Jean M. Bartunek
Katherine V. Smith*
Affiliation:
Boston College
Jean M. Bartunek
Affiliation:
Boston College
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Center for Corporate Citizenship, Carroll School of Management, Boston College, 55 Lee Road, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3942
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This response is being written primarily from the perspective of the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and insights derived from extensive interactions with its members. This enables a different perspective on the focal article by Aguinis and Glavas (2013) than one primarily based on macro/micro distinctions in academic scholarship.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 338 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(4), 314–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arya, B., & Zhang, G. (2009). Institutional reforms and investor reactions to CSR announcements: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1089–1112. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00836.xGoogle Scholar
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 248–262. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2007.03.006Google Scholar
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 147–157.Google Scholar
Karnani, A. (2012). The case against corporate social responsibility. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703338004575230112664504890.html#printMode?cb=logged0.5442891728598624Google Scholar
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 71–89. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9804-2Google Scholar
Page, A., & Katz, R. A. (2012). The truth about Ben and Jerry's. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_truth_about_ben_and_jerrysGoogle Scholar
Park, K. M., & Hollinshead, G. (2011). Logics and limits in ethical outsourcing and offshoring in the global financial services industry. Competition and Change, 15, 177–195. doi: 10.1179/102452911X13046725211210Google Scholar
Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and meaningfulness at work: An identity perspective. In Cameron, K., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 309–327). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 158–166.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. L., Fraedrich, J. P., & Mullen, L. G. (2011). Successful cause-related marketing partnering as a means to aligning corporate and philanthropic goals: an empirical study. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 15, 113–132.Google Scholar