Perceived corporate social responsibility and innovative work behavior: The role of employee volunteerism and authenticity

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 1865-1877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajjad A. Afridi ◽  
Bilal Afsar ◽  
Asad Shahjehan ◽  
Zia U. Rehman ◽  
Maqsood Haider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Work Behavior ◽  
Innovative Work Behavior ◽  
Employee Volunteerism ◽  
Innovative Work ◽  
Corporate Social

The Ethics of Petroleum

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathon W. Moses ◽  
Bjørn Letnes
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Host Country ◽  
Corporate Citizenship ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Oil Company

This chapter considers the role of international oil companies (IOCs) as global political actors with significant economic and political power. In doing so, we weigh the ethical costs and benefits for individuals, companies, and states alike. Using the concepts of “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) and “corporate citizenship” as points of departure, we consider the extent to which international oil companies have social and political responsibilities in the countries where they operate and what the host country can do to encourage this sort of behavior. We examine the nature of anticorruption legislation in several of the sending countries (including Norway), and look closely at how the Norwegian national oil company (NOC), Statoil, has navigated these ethical waters.

Toward a Theoretical Framework of Corporate Social Irresponsibility: Clarifying the Gray Zones Between Responsibility and Irresponsibility

2021 ◽  
pp. 000765032110159
Author(s):  
Cynthia E. Clark ◽  
Marta Riera ◽  
María Iborra
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
Corporate Social Irresponsibility ◽  
Corporate Social

In this conceptual article, we argue that defining corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) as opposite constructs produces a lack of clarity between responsible and irresponsible acts. Furthermore, we contend that the treatment of the CSR and CSI concepts as opposites de-emphasizes the value of CSI as a stand-alone construct. Thus, we reorient the CSI discussion to include multiple aspects that current conceptualizations have not adequately accommodated. We provide an in-depth exploration of how researchers define CSI and both identify and analyze three important gray zones between CSR and CSI: (a) the role of harm and benefit, (b) the role of the actor and intentionality, and (c) the role of rectification. We offer these gray zones as factors contributing to the present lack of conceptual clarity of the term CSI, as a concept in its own right, leading to difficulties that researchers and managers experience in categorizing CSI acts as distinct from CSR.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Government: The Role of Discretion for Engagement with Public Policy

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Jette Steen Knudsen ◽  
Jeremy Moon
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Integrated Framework ◽  
The Law ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

We investigate the relationship of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (often assumed to reflect corporate voluntarism) and government (often assumed to reflect coercion). We distinguish two broad perspectives on the CSR and government relationship: the dichotomous (i.e., government and CSR are / should be independent of one another) and the related (i.e., government and CSR are / should be interconnected). Using typologies of CSR public policy and of CSR and the law, we present an integrated framework for corporate discretion for engagement with public policy for CSR. We make four related contributions. First, we explain the dichotomous and the related perspectives with reference to their various assumptions and analyses. Second, we demonstrate that public policy for CSR and corporate discretion coexist and interact. Specifically, we show, third, that public policy for CSR can inform and stimulate corporate discretion and, fourth, that corporations have discretion for CSR, particularly as to how corporations engage with such policy.

scholarly journals The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implications for Corporate Social Responsibility Research

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Andreas RASCHE ◽  
Sandra WADDOCK
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Un Global Compact ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Institutional Infrastructure ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Corporate Social

Abstract This article presents a review of the literature on the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs) for the purpose of situating the UNGPs in the voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) infrastructure. We identify four key themes that underlie the debate: (1) a critical assessment of the UNGPs, (2) their application to different sectors, (3) a discussion of how to embed key aspects of the UNGPs into national and regional contexts, and (4) reflections on the role of due diligence. We discuss these themes and outline some practical and theoretical take-away messages. Our review highlights some similarities and differences to the discussion of voluntary initiatives in the field of CSR, especially the UN Global Compact. Our discussion helps to understand how the UNGPs are situated in the voluntary institutional infrastructure for CSR. Finally, we show how the theoretical and practical discourse on the UNGPs can be further advanced.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document