Journal of Management Vol. 38 No. 4, July 2012 932-968

DOI: 10.1177/0149206311436079 © The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review

and Research Agenda

Herman Aguinis Indiana University

Ante Glavas University of Notre Dame

The authors review the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature based on 588 journal articles and 102 books and book chapters. They offer a multilevel and multidisciplinary theoretical framework that synthesizes and integrates the literature at the institutional, organizational, and individual levels of analysis. The framework includes reactive and proactive predictors of CSR actions and policies and the outcomes of such actions and policies, which they classify as primarily affecting internal (i.e., internal outcomes) or external (i.e., external outcomes) stakeholders. The framework includes variables that explain underlying mechanisms (i.e., relationship- and value-based mediator variables) of CSR–outcomes relationships and contingency effects (i.e., people-, place-, price-, and profile-based moderator variables) that explain conditions under which the relationship between CSR and its outcomes change. The authors’ review reveals important knowledge gaps related to the adoption of different theoretical orientations by researchers studying CSR at different levels of analysis, the need to understand underlying mechanisms linking CSR with outcomes, the need for research at micro levels of analysis (i.e., individuals and teams), and the need for methodological approaches that will help address these substantive knowledge gaps. Accordingly, they offer a detailed research agenda for the future, based on a multilevel perspective that aims to integrate diverse theoretical frameworks as well as develop an understanding of underlying mechanisms and microfoundations of CSR (i.e., foundations based on individual action and interactions). The authors also provide specific suggestions regarding research design, measurement, and data-analytic approaches that will be instrumental in carrying out their proposed research agenda.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility; sustainability; microfoundations of corporate social responsibility; corporate citizenship; corporate social performance

932

Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Talya N. Bauer. Both authors contributed equally to this research. We thank Deborah Rupp and two Journal of Management anonymous reviewers for excel- lent and highly constructive comments that allowed us to improve our work substantially. We also thank Edward J. Conlon, Georges Enderle, William C. Frederick, and Sandra Waddock for their helpful comments and advice on earlier versions of our manuscript.

Corresponding author: Herman Aguinis, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-170, USA

E-mail: [email protected]

Aguinis, Glavas / Corporate Social Responsibility 933

Scholars have studied firms’ social concerns for many decades (e.g., Berle, 1931; Bowen, 1953; Davis, 1960; Dodd, 1932; Frederick, 1960). However, it is only recently that interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become more widespread (Serenko & Bontis, 2009; Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009). To avoid confusion given the different conceptualizations available (Carroll, 1999; Peloza, 2009; Waddock, 2004), we use the definition of CSR as offered by Aguinis (2011: 855) and adopted by others (e.g., Rupp, 2011; Rupp, Williams, & Aguilera, 2010): “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance.” Although the definition of CSR refers to policies and actions by organizations, such policies and actions are influenced and implemented by actors at all levels of analysis (e.g., institutional, organizational, and individual).

As the field of CSR has evolved, scholars have written literature reviews addressing important yet specific research questions. For example, Peloza (2009) focused on how to measure the impact of CSR on financial performance, Carroll (1999) and Waddock (2004) explored the operationalization of CSR as well as differences and sometimes confusing overlaps between CSR and similar constructs, Wood (2010) reviewed the literature on how to measure CSR, and Peloza and Shang (2011) conducted a review of how CSR can create value for stakeholders. In addition, other reviews of the CSR literature have focused on specific disciplines such as marketing (Enderle & Murphy, 2009; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004); organizational behavior (OB), human resource management (HRM), and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology (Aguinis, 2011); operations (Brammer, Hoejmose, & Millington, 2011); and information systems (Elliot, 2011).

In spite of the reviews published thus far, the CSR literature remains highly fragmented. As noted by Waddock, “Parallel and sometimes confusing universes exist” (2004: 5). One reason for this fragmentation is that scholars study CSR through different disciplinary and conceptual lenses (Carroll, 1999; Garriga & Melé, 2004; Waddock, 2004). Moreover, the CSR literature is fragmented regarding levels of analysis. First, CSR is usually studied from one level of analysis at a time. Second, CSR is primarily studied at the macro level (i.e., institutional or organizational level) compared to the micro level (i.e., individual level). Accordingly, there is a need for a multilevel and multidisciplinary review in which the vast and diverse extant literature can be integrated and synthesized in a coherent and comprehensive manner.

In contrast to previously published reviews, our article provides an integration of the large and highly heterogeneous CSR literature originating in such fields as environmental studies, OB, HRM, marketing, organizational theory, and strategy, among others. We offer a general model to synthesize previously published work at the institutional, organizational, and individual levels of analysis. Building upon this general model, we provide a critical analysis of what we know (i.e., where we have been) and what we do not know (i.e., where we need to go) about CSR. Accordingly, our review makes the following value-added contributions. First, we address the need for multilevel models of CSR (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). Second, because of our multilevel approach, our review also helps bridge the much lamented micro–macro divide in the field of management (Aguinis, Boyd, Pierce, & Short, 2011). Third, our integrative model incorporates

934 Journal of Management / July 2012

mediators and moderators that will enable future research to clarify the various possible roles for key constructs and improve our understanding of underlying processes (i.e., mediating effects) and conditions under which (i.e., moderating effects) CSR leads to specific outcomes. Finally, our review uncovers critical knowledge gaps and provides clear and specific directions for future research as well as suggestions regarding methodological approaches— an informative road map in terms of future research.

Scope of the Review

Our review relies on information extracted from 588 journal articles and 102 books and book chapters (please see the appendix for a description of our literature search procedures). We modeled the scope and structure of our review on others published in the Journal of Management (e.g., Laplume, Sonpar, & Litz, 2008; Nicholls-Nixon, Castilla, Garcia, & Pesquera, 2011). In conducting our literature review, we systematically focused on two issues. First, in each source we identified predictors of CSR, outcomes of CSR, and mediators and moderators of CSR–outcomes relationships. Predictors in our model are antecedents of CSR actions and policies (i.e., CSR initiatives). Outcomes are those that result from CSR initiatives. Mediators are those variables that explain the underlying processes and mechanisms of why CSR initiatives are related to an outcome, while moderators describe the conditions under which CSR initiatives influence outcomes. Second, in each source we focused on identifying relationships among variables at the institutional, organizational, and individual levels of analysis.

Although no review is completely inclusive, the aforementioned two principles allowed us to synthesize and integrate the vast and diverse extant CSR literature. Our intent is not to provide an exhaustive historical review that summarizes all of the valuable contributions from CSR scholars over the past century (for a historical review, see Carroll, 2008). Rather, we offer a general theoretical framework that is broad and that allows for the inclusion of more variables in the future, thereby opening the possibility that knowledge regarding CSR will continue to accumulate in a more systematic fashion.

Results of our literature search, summarized in Tables 1 and 2, reveal the following. First, in the entire set of 588 articles, there are slightly more conceptual (i.e., 53%) than empirical (i.e., 47%) articles (see Table 1). Second, a content analysis based on the subset of 181 articles published in 17 journals that do not specialize in CSR revealed an increased interest in the topic over time (see Table 2). In the 1970s, there were 23 articles published, which then dropped to 16 in the 1980s. From 1990 to 2005, the number of articles published per year doubled. Since 2005, the number of publications has greatly accelerated, and almost half (43%) of the CSR articles have been published since 2005. Third, regarding level-of-analysis issues, 33% of the articles focused on the institutional level, 57% on the organizational level, 4% on the individual level, and 5% addressed two or more levels. In short, our literature search revealed that there is a balance between the number of conceptual and empirical articles. However, there is a clear imbalance in terms of levels of analysis; the vast majority of articles address the institutional and organizational levels of analysis, and there is very little research adopting an individual or multilevel approach.

Aguinis, Glavas / Corporate Social Responsibility 935

Table 1 Summary of Literature Search Results Including Journals Specializing in Corporate

Social Responsibility and Related Topics, n (%)

Journal Empirical Conceptual Total

Academy of Management Journal 32 (86) 5 (14) 37 (6) Academy of Management Review 2 (4) 45 (96) 47 (8) Administrative Science Quarterly 3 (75) 1 (25) 4 (1) Business & Society 12 (44) 15 (56) 27 (5) Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (100) 11 (2) International Journal of Management Reviews 9 (100) 9 (2) Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 8 (57) 6 (43) 14 (2) Journal of Applied Psychology 0 (0) Journal of Business Ethics 154 (45) 188 (55) 342 (58) Journal of International Business Studies 6 (86) 1 (14) 7 (1) Journal of Management 6 (55) 5 (45) 11 (2) Journal of Management Studies 11 (65) 6 (35) 17 (3) Journal of Marketing 5 (100) 5 (1) Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 2 (100) 2 (0) Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 0 (0) Journal of Organizational Behavior 1 (100) 1 (0) Organization Science 1 (50) 1 (50) 2 (0) Organization Studies 6 (75) 2 (25) 8 (1) Personnel Psychology 1 (100) 1 (0) Strategic Management Journal 15 (94) 1 (6) 16 (3) Other journals 7 (47) 8 (53) 27 (5) Total 271 (47) 305 (53) 588

Table 2 Summary of Literature Search Results Excluding Journals Specializing in Corporate

Social Responsibility and Related Topics, n (%)

Years and Level of Analysis Empirical Conceptual Total

Publication years 1970-1979 9 (39) 14 (61) 23 (13) 1980-1989 9 (56) 7 (44) 16 (9) 1990-1999 26 (62) 16 (38) 42 (23) 2000-2004 16 (70) 7 (30) 23 (13) 2005-2011 38 (49) 39 (51) 77 (43) Total 98 83 181 Level of analysis Institutional 36 (60) 24 (40) 60 (33) Organizational 50 (48) 54 (52) 104 (57) Individual 5 (62.5) 3 (37.5) 8 (4) Multilevel: institutional and organizational 3 (75) 1 (25) 4 (2) Multilevel: organizational and individual 3 (100) 0 3 (2) Multilevel: institutional, organizational, and individual 1 (50) 1 (50) 2 (1) Total 98 83 181

Note: These results refer to the 17 journals included in the content analysis as described in the appendix.

936 Journal of Management / July 2012

What We Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: Institutional, Organizational, and Individual Levels of Analysis

In the following sections, we critically review the CSR literature at each level of analysis (i.e., institutional, organizational, and individual). Each of the sections includes a summary table in which predictors, outcomes, mediators, and moderators are listed at each specific level. Also, although we will not describe in the text all of the studies summarized in the tables, these tables provide a fast and accessible way to locate sources addressing various types of relationships at different levels of analysis. Later in our article, we will refer back to these tables when we discuss specific future research directions in the context of describing what we do not know about CSR—knowledge gaps that should be addressed in the future. Note that the tables represent variables as they were studied in the published sources, so some of the variables were studied in multiple roles (e.g., as a predictor in one study and as a moderator in another study).

Institutional Level of Analysis

Articles focusing on the institutional level of analysis address at least one of Scott’s (1995) three pillars of institutions: normative, cultural-cognitive, and regulative elements. So, for example, articles addressing laws and standards, which are regulative elements (Scott, 1995), are classified as addressing CSR at the institutional level of analysis. Similarly, articles addressing constructs that are shaped by society, consumers, and stakeholders external to the firm, which are cultural-cognitive and normative elements (Scott, 1995), are also classified as focusing on the institutional level of analysis.

Predictors. As shown in Table 3, firms engage in CSR due to institutional pressures, particularly from stakeholders (e.g., Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999; Boal & Peery, 1985; Sharma & Henriques, 2005; Stevens, Steensma, Harrison, & Cochran, 2005). Over three decades ago, Grunig (1979) found that different stakeholders have different expectations regarding a firm’s CSR. More recent work has revealed that stakeholders take on different roles and engage in different activities while attempting to influence firms to engage in CSR. Specifically, stakeholders can be shareholders (David, Bloom, & Hillman, 2007), consumers (Christmann & Taylor, 2006; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), the media (Davidson & Worrell, 1988; Weaver, Treviño, & Cochran, 1999a, 1999b), the local community (Marquis, Glynn, & Davis, 2007), and interest groups (Greening & Gray, 1994). Regardless of their specific role, Aguilera et al. (2007) theorized that stakeholders have three main motives for pressuring firms to engage in CSR: (1) instrumental (i.e., self-interest driven), (2) relational (i.e., based on a concern with relationships among group members), and (3) moral (i.e., based on a concern with ethical standards and moral principles).

The ways in which stakeholders can serve as catalysts for CSR initiatives are quite diverse. For example, Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) found that customers influence firms through their evaluations and product purchasing, and Christmann and Taylor (2006) ascertained that customers also exert influence through customer monitoring and expected sanctions. Also,

937

T a b

le 3

S u

m m

a ry

o f

C o n

ce p

tu a l

a n

d E

m p

ir ic

a l

R es

ea rc

h o

n C

o rp

o ra

te S

o ci

a l

R es

p o n

si b

il it

y (

C S

R )

a t

th e

In st

it u

ti o n

a l

L ev

el o

f A

n a ly

si s

P re

d ic

to rs

o f

C S

R M

ed ia

to rs

o f

C S

R – O

u tc

o m

es

R el

at io

n sh

ip M

o d er

at o rs

o f

C S

R – O

u tc

o m

es

R el

at io

n sh

ip

O u tc

o m

es o

f C

S R

C o n

ce p

tu a l

p a p

er s

A ct

iv is

t g ro

u p p

re ss

u re

s (d

en H

o n d &

d e

B

ak k er

, 2 0 0 7 )

E co

n o m

ic c

o n d it

io n s

(C am

p b el

l, 2

0 0 7 )

S ta

k eh

o ld

er i

n st

ru m

en ta

l, r

el at

io n al

, an

d

m

o ra

l m

o ti

v es

( A

g u il

er a,

R u p p ,

W il

li am

s,

&

G an

ap at

h i,

2 0 0 7 )

S ta

k eh

o ld

er p

sy ch

o lo

g ic

al n

ee d s

(A

g u il

er a

et a

l. ,

2 0 0 7 )

E m

p ir

ic a l

p a p

er s

In st

it u ti

o n al

a n d s

ta k eh

o ld

er p

re ss

u re

• S

ta ke

ho ld

er i

nf lu

en ce

/p re

ss ur

e (B

oa l

&

P ee

ry , 1

98 5;

B ra

m m

er &

M il

li ng

to n,

2 00

8;

G re

en in

g &

G ra

y, 1

99 4;

H en

ri qu

es &

S

ad or

sk y,

1 99

9; S

ha rm

a &

H en

ri qu

es , 2

00 5;

S

te ve

ns , S

te en

sm a,

H ar

ri so

n, &

C oc

hr an

, 20

05 )

• S

h ar

eh o ld

er a

ct iv

is m

( – )

(D av

id ,

B lo

o m

, &

H il

lm an

, 2 0 0 7 )

• M

im et

ic f

or ce

s (N

ik ol

ae va

& B

ic ho

, 20

11 )

• T

ra d e-

re la

te d p

re ss

u re

s (B

o al

& P

ee ry

, 1 9 8 5 ;

M u ll

er &

K o lk

, 2 0 1 0 )

• M

ed ia

p re

ss u re

( D

av id

so n &

W o rr

el l,

1 9 8 8 ;

W ea

v er

, T

re v iñ

o ,

& C

o ch

ra n ,

1 9 9 9 a,

1 9 9 9 b )

E m

p ir

ic a l

P a p

er s

F

ir m

r ep

ut at

io n

an d

go od

w il

l w

it h

ex te

rn al

s ta

ke ho

ld er

s

( O

rl it

zk y,

S ch

m id

t, &

R

yn es

, 20

03 )

C u st

o m

er s

• C

u st

o m

er s

at is

fa ct

io n (

L ev

, P

et ro

v it

s, &

R ad

h ak

ri sh

n an

, 2 0 1 0 ;

L u o &

B h at

ta ch

ar y a,

2 0 0 6 )

• C

u st

o m

er – o rg

an iz

at io

n f

it

(S en

& B

h at

ta ch

ar y a,

2 0 0 1 )

• C

o n su

m er

t ru

st (

V la

ch o s,

T

sa m

ak o s,

V re

ch o p o u lu

s, &

A

v ra

m id

is ,

2 0 0 9 )

C o n

ce p

tu a l

P a p

er s

S ta

k eh

o ld

er s

• C

o n su

m er

i n fo

rm at

io n i

n te

n si

ty (

S ch

u le

r &

C

o rd

in g ,

2 0 0 6 )

• P

u b li

c p er

ce p ti

o n o

f fi

rm C

S R

( L

ev e

t al

.,

2 0 1 0 )

O th

er •

N at

io n al

a n d t

ra n sn

at io

n al

f ra

m ew

o rk

s su

ch a

s cu

lt u re

, p o li

ti cs

, fi

n an

ci al

, la

b o r,

ed

u ca

ti o n s

y st

em s,

a n d p

ra ct

ic es

( A

g u il

er a

& J

ac k so

n ,

2 0 0 3 )

• In

st it

u ti

o n al

c o n d it

io n s:

r eg

u la

ti o n ,

m o n it

o ri

n g ,

n o rm

s, a

n d s

ta k eh

o ld

er

d ia

lo g u e

(C am

p b el

l, 2

0 0 7 )

E m

p ir

ic a l

P a p

er s

C u st

o m

er s

• C

o n su

m er

b el

ie fs

a n d s

u p p o rt

f o r

C S

R

(S en

& B

h at

ta ch

ar y a,

2 0 0 1 )

• S

en si

ti v it

y t

o c

o n su

m er

p er

ce p ti

o n s

(L ev

et

a l.

, 2 0 1 0 )

• C

o n su

m er

p er

ce p ti

o n s

o f

n ee

d o

f ca

u se

, re

p u ta

ti o n o

f fi

rm ,

an d f

ir m

m o ti

v es

o f

ca u se

( E

ll en

, M

o h r,

& W

eb b ,

2 0 0 0 )

E m

p ir

ic a l

P a p

er s

R ep

u ta

ti o n o

f fi

rm (

B ra

m m

er

& P

av el

in ,

2 0 0 6 ;

F o m

b ru

n

& S

h an

le y,

1 9 9 0 ;

T u rb

an &

G

re en

in g ,

1 9 9 7 ;

V er

sc h o o r,

1 9 9 8 ;

W ad

d o ck

& G

ra v es

, 1 9 9 7 b )

C o n su

m er

e v al

u at

io n o

f p ro

d u ct

/c o m

p an

y (

B ro

w n &

D

ac in

, 1 9 9 7 ;

E ll

en e

t al

.,

2 0 0 0 ;

S en

& B

h at

ta ch

ar y a,

2 0 0 1 )

C o n su

m er

c h o ic

e o f

co m

p an

y /p

ro d u ct

( A

ro ra

&

H en

d er

so n ,

2 0 0 7 ;

S en

&

B h at

ta ch

ar y a,

2 0 0 1 )

C u st

o m

er l

o y al

ty (

M ai

g n an

, F

er re

ll ,

& H

u lt

, 1 9 9 9 )

(c o n ti

n u ed

)

938

P re

d ic

to rs

o f

C S

R M

ed ia

to rs

o f

C S

R – O

u tc

o m

es

R el

at io

n sh

ip M

o d er

at o rs

o f

C S

R – O

u tc

o m

es

R el

at io

n sh

ip

O u tc

o m

es o

f C

S R

• C

u st

o m

er e

v al

u at

io n a

n d p

u rc

h as

in g

d ec

is io

n s

(C h ri

st m

an n &

T ay

lo r,

2 0 0 6 ;

S en

&

B h at

ta ch

ar y a,

2 0 0 1 )

• C

u st

o m

er m

o n it

o ri

n g o

f fi

rm (

C h ri

st m

an n

& T

ay lo

r, 2

0 0 6 )

• S

ta ke

ho ld

er p

ow er

, l eg

it im

ac y,

a nd

u rg

en cy

(A

gl e,

M it

ch el

l, &

S on

ne nf

el d,

1 99

9) •

L o ca

l co

m m

u n it

y p

re ss

u re

( M

ar q u is

, G

ly n n ,

& D

av is

, 2 0 0 7 )

• S

h ar

eh o ld

er a

ct iv

is m

( R

eh b ei

n ,

W ad

d o ck

, &

G ra

v es

, 2 0 0 4 )

• M

an ag

em en

t o f

q u al

it y r

el at

io n sh

ip s

w it

h

st ak

eh o ld

er s

(H il

lm an

& K

ei m

, 2 0 0 1 )

• In

fl u en

ce o

f o rg

an iz

at io

n al

f ie

ld (

i. e.

, g ro

u p o

f o rg

an iz

at io

n s

to w

h ic

h t

h e

fi rm

i s

al ig

n ed

) (H

o ff

m an

, 1 9 9 9 )

R eg

u la

ti o n s

an d s

ta n d ar

d s

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.