Professional Documents
Culture Documents
research-article2015
Editorial
Corporate Responsibility
Research:
PastPresentFuture
Abstract
The concept of corporate responsibility (CR) has moved a long way over
the past six decades, since Bowens book titled Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman marked a modern era of business and society research. In this
article, we trace the development of business and society literature to provide
contextual background to contemporary studies of CR. As well as looking
backward, however, we also project forward arguing that fundamental changes
in the current business environment are likely to propel CR to new heights
in the future. In particular, we explore the mechanisms by which CR affects
stakeholder behavior and suggest ways in which scholars and practitioners
may want to apply advances from psychology to link CR strategy to human
motivation and the notion of balance in organizations and society.
Keywords
corporate responsibility, stakeholders, sustainability, relationships, strategy
Introduction
Corporate responsibility (CR) and its related terms and concepts have
received significant attention in management theory and practice (Aguinis &
Glavas, 2012; Basu & Palazzo, 2008; Godfrey & Hatch, 2007; Matten &
1Henley
Corresponding Author:
Carola Hillenbrand, Henley Business School, Henley-on-Thames, Greenlands, RG9 3AU,
Oxfordshire, UK.
Email: carola.hillenbrand@henley.ac.uk
272
273
Ghobadian et al.
274
1950
19501970
Social Responsibilities of the Businessman
(Bowen, 1953)
Corporate social responsibility (e.g., Eells
& Walton, 1961; Elbing & Elbing, 1964)
Responsibility to society (e.g., Davis &
Blomstrom, 1975; McGuire, 1963)
1960
1970
19701990
19902010
1980
1990
2010 onwards
Social entrepreneurship (e.g., Arend, 2013; Dacin, Dacin, &
Tracey, 2011; Pless, 2012)
Shared value/hybrid organizations (e.g., Porter and Kramer, 2011)
Base of the pyramid (e.g., Ansari, Munir, & Gregg, 2012; Kolk,
Rivera-Santos, & Rufn, 2014)
Multiple-constituency approach
(Connolly, Conlon & Deutsch, 1980)
2000
2010
over critical time periods. The time periods 1950-1970, 1970-1990, 19902010, and 2010 onward represent milestones of important conceptual developments in the field.
275
Ghobadian et al.
276
277
Ghobadian et al.
278
society researchers have shifted from explicitly normative and ethics-oriented arguments to implicitly normative and performance-oriented managerial studies (p. 1). Indeed, much of the recent work on CR both in academia
and practice focuses on the outcomes associated with CR and CR-related
benefits for firms, such as employee well-being and motivation (e.g.,
Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korschun, 2008; Poposki, 2011; Van Mierlo, Rutte,
Kompier, & Doorewaard, 2005), or supportive consumer reactions
(Bhattacharya, Korschun, & Sen, 2009; Peloza & Shang, 2011). Although
this shift is useful, what is largely missing in the current literature is an analysis of the underlying processes by which CR affects business outcomes, or in
other words, an exploration of the mechanisms by which CR can achieve
positive impact and outcomes at a behavioral level within and between individuals, teams, groups, the organization, and stakeholders. Recently, theorists
have called to redress this balance by exploring how CR can affect performance through relational, reputational, identity, and group mechanisms
(Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Basu & Palazzo, 2008;
Carvalho, Sen, de Oliveira Mota, & de Lima, 2010). Indeed, it is only with
the knowledge of how CR influences behavior and performance that theorists
and practitioners can make meaningful and impactful advancements
(Hillenbrand et al., 2013).
We therefore continue by summarizing six current studies brought together
to explore the mechanisms by which CR affects stakeholder behavior. The
first three studies explore the psychological factors that moderate and mediate the impact of CR on individuals in employee relationships. In the first
article, titled Building Employee Relationships Through CSR: The
Moderating Impact of Cynicism and Reward for Application, West,
Hillenbrand, and Money (2015) explore the moderating role of social axiomsthe deeply held individual beliefs about how concepts in the world are
relatedin explaining the impact of CR on employee commitment. The
authors explore why the same CR strategies and employee experiences sometimes lead to different outcomes for organizations in terms of employee attitudes and supportive behaviors. The authors find that high levels of cynicism
among employees reduce the impact of CR on positive employee attitudes
and supportive behaviors, whereas high levels of reward for application
increase the impact of CR on these outcomes. The social axiom construct is a
very useful one for theorists and practitioners alikebecause it explains why
employees may respond to the same strategies in different ways. Furthermore,
there are large databases providing information about the expression of social
axioms in different countries and cultures. In such a way, theorists and practitioners will be better equipped to predict how CR activities may affect
employee behaviors in different countries and cultures.
279
Ghobadian et al.
280
281
Ghobadian et al.
Future Trends in CR
At the start of this article, we illustrated developments of concepts in the
business and society literature since the 1950s before signposting contemporary studies that shed light on the mechanisms by which CR can affect stakeholder behavior. This recent work suggests that applying insights from
psychology to the study of CR aids the advancement of CR in both academia
and practice and we therefore conclude this review of CR research past
presentfuture by outlining how the inclusion of psychological theories
into the study and application of CR and its related concepts may help to
drive behavior change, both at an individual and organizational level.
Although we can only explore one idea in some depth in this final section of
our article, we realize that there are a number of current developments (some
of which are noted previously in the section titled Time Period 2010
Onwards) that hold significant promise for future research. To achieve this
promise, we encourage business and society researchers to follow two lines
of thinking in particular. First, we believe that it is critical that the CR debate
is connected more explicitly to the field of sustainability and strategy. This
will ensure that CR and its related concepts speak directly to a discourse that
is now mainstream in both the world of academia and practice. We warmly
welcome new approaches such as non-market strategy and social entrepreneurship, as well as approaches that decouple economic growth from consumption. Second, psychological theories of human behavior and motivation
may form the foundation of new CR theories rather than being seen as addons, albeit useful ones, to existing business and society theory. This will
ensure that CR and its impacts can be studied as a core driver in human activityand can build upon the considerable advances in the understanding of
human psychology. We go on to highlight one such theory of CR that we
believe illustrates such an approach and also holds potential for the development of sustainability thinking as it begins to address the three themes we
282
283
Ghobadian et al.
wayeach of the four drives is seen to compete with the others for
dominance rather than build upon the achievement of the other.
Lawrence and Nohria (2002) provide compelling arguments for balancing these drives at the level of the individual by outlining the damage that can occur if one of these human drives becomes dominant.
Money et al. (2015) extend this theory by suggesting that human drives
function not only at the level of the individual but also at the level of societies, cultures, and organizations. An imbalance between human drives results
in pathologies and patterns of unsustainable/irresponsible behaviors. The
authors argue that the current lack of environmental and social responsibility
of businesses and societies is a direct result of an imbalance that favors the
drive to acquire (money, status, and possessions), a common feature of
Western society since the industrial revolution and a trend that is now also
common in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries. To redress this imbalance, organizations are invited to leverage the
other drivers of human behavior: to defend the planet; to bond with other
people, that is, through responsible action; and to inform/educate others on
issues of responsibility.
2. An imbalance between focusing on positive and negative outcomes.
Building on the work by Seligman (2011, 2012) and Fredrickson
(2003), and their responses to a historical bias of psychology literature to focus on the prevention of a negative rather than creation of
a positive, Money et al. (2015) further the notion that the prevention of a negative is not the same as the creation of a positiveand
respond to Seligmans (2011, 2012) call for more research into human
flourishing. A key thesis being that as a species, humans are more
likely to achieve success if we study success and seek it out, rather
than trying to prevent failure (Catalino & Fredrickson, 2011;
Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). The authors extend this logic to the
development of a psychological response to responsibility, by contending that current CR models focus on symptoms rather than causes
and often focus on what people should not do (e.g., consume) rather
than what people can do; and, as such, are reactive rather than proactive and neglect the in-depth study of CR success stories.
Furthermore, the authors use Seligmans (2011, 2012) insights to adapt
Lawrence and Nohrias (2002) drive theory to the context of responsibility.
Seligman (2011, 2012) suggests that a balance of motivation and activities is
associated with human flourishing. Despite the different philosophical origins
284
of the works by Lawrence and Nohria (2002) and Seligman (2011, 2012),
Money et al. (2015) see the practical implications of the work for business as
complementary rather than contradictory. In particular, the drive to comprehend can usefully be described as comprehending both the why and how
of responsibility. The authors label the why aspect of comprehending as a
drive for meaning, which, building on Seligman (2011, 2012), is a desire for
a purpose bigger than the self. The how of comprehending is labeled by the
authors as a drive for learning, that is, essentially a desire to understand
how things work and how responsibility targets can be achieved.
3. An imbalance between public and private identities. Finally, close
alignment of internal (more private) and external (more public)
aspects of human identity has been associated with functional behaviors of individualswhile imbalance and misalignment has often be
associated with dysfunctional behaviors (Lawrence, 2010; Van Lange,
2000). Overconsumption can be viewed as a function of an imbalance, where the purchase of material goods and status is used to compensate for misalignments at other levels of identity. To achieve
alignment of layers of self (Hillenbrand & Money, 2015; Lewis et al.,
2000), individuals may want to cultivate a positive view of their core
selfin which a purpose or meaning is sought that is greater than
their own success and consumptionand live out such a meaning
through internal as well as external aspects of identity. This resonates
with Seligmans (2011) notion of a lived purpose and is expressed in
a social process of witnessing and sharing that is key to the development of a functional self. Such a process invites individuals to share
their (mis)alignments in a culture of acceptance and to be seen and
accepted for who they really are (Lewis et al., 2000).
Applying this logic to the field of CR, Money et al. (2015) suggest that
organizations can help to create a culture of sharing between individuals
regarding responsible behavior. Rather than framing CR as a should or
ideal state, organizations are encouraged to allow stakeholders to share
their experiences of responsible behavior, thereby connecting identities to a
core sense of self, rather than at a surface level.
At an organizational level, businesses could embrace the balancing of
internal and external worlds through the use of a process. The RELATE
Process (Money, Hillenbrand, Hunter, & Money, 2012), shown in Figure 2,
invites organizations to reflect on gaps between their values, behaviors, and
stakeholder expectations; and through this process to share their stories. In
this way, CR at an organizational level may be seen as a process by which an
285
Ghobadian et al.
CR as a process:
Balancing
stakeholder and
business needs
4. Gap analysis
Identify gaps between what the
organization currently does and what
stakeholders want from the organization.
Identify gaps between the actions of the
organization and the actions that will
balance the needs of multiple players. Do
stakeholders have different and competing
motivations and expectations of the
organization? Are there gaps between the
current situation and organizational
values and purpose?
3. Understanding stakeholder
perspectives
Investigate how stakeholders currently
experience the organization and perceive
the issue. What are stakeholder
expectations regarding the organization
and CR issue? Are stakeholders
supportive of the organization? What are
motivations underlying stakeholder
behavior (e.g. in terms of drive to bond,
acquire, defend, learn and find
meaning)? Identify organizational
actions that are viewed by stakeholders
as responsible and will bring about
stakeholder support.
286
healthy balance among the drives in our societies. In this way, business can
provide an antidote to the excess of imbalance that has occurred through recent
human history. If organizations are to embrace a wider sense of humanity, they
will have a wider set of levers to encourage stakeholder support. At the same
time, businesses can view a wider range of stakeholder behaviors as indicators
of success. Organizations are invited to think of CR in terms of the role that
they play in society by balancing five key dimensions outlined by Money et al.
(2015) as (a) provider of quality products (acquiring), (b) defender of what is
important to people (defending), (c) facilitator of conversations and communities (bonding), (d) educator in the space of sustainable consumption and wellbeing (learning), and (e) co-creator of purpose (meaning).
Importantly, these dimensions, when in balance, could be of considerable
benefit to society and alleviate some of the pressing problems humanity faces
now and in the future. International business, we argue, has the scale, crossboundary geographic reach, and engagement with mass populations of
employees, consumers, and other stakeholders to restore the balance in our
societies and have a positive impact on the world and how it consumes
resources. Through such a process, organizations can focus on the causes of
sustainable and unsustainable behavior, rather than reducing the symptoms as
many mainstream sustainability initiatives do at the moment. In essence, the
authors propose a new business model that suggests that the purpose of business could be to restore balance at an intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal level.
Conclusion
In this article, we review past and contemporary CR research and also illustrate what we see as one fruitful avenue for future research. Past research has
achieved much by defining and measuring the concepts related to CRand
has frequently promoted the notions of CR, sustainability, and corporate citizenship, rather than social aspects of CR, as the vehicle by which responsibility can affect mainstream academia and practice. Contemporary studies often
focus on understanding the contingencies related to CR: Does CR lead to
positive outcomes? Why does CR sometimes lead to negative outcomes?
And under what conditions, cultures, or circumstances are these outcomes
most likely? To explore these contingencies, current studies increasingly
incorporate psychological concepts, such as social learning theory, social axioms, and social identity theory to understand the mechanisms by which theories of CR operate in stakeholder relationships. In the future, we encourage
researchers to build on a changing public mind-set that no longer challenges
issues such as population growth and climate changeand instead invites
287
Ghobadian et al.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Ackerman, R. W. (1975). The social challenge to business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S
back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836-863.
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and dont know about corporate
social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management,
38, 932-968.
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social
responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 6, 314-332.
Amit, R., Zott, C., & Pearson, A. (2012). Creating value through business model
innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 40-49.
Andriof, J., & McIntosh, M. (2001). Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Sheffield,
UK: Greenleaf.
Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In J. Andriof,
S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder
thinking (pp. 19-42). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
Ansari, S., Munir, K., & Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the bottom of the pyramid: The
role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment.
Journal of Management Studies, 49, 813-842.
Arend, R. J. (2013). A heart-mind-opportunity nexus: Distinguishing social entrepreneurship for entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 38, 313-315.
288
289
Ghobadian et al.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
Carvalho, S. W., Sen, S., de Oliveira Mota, M., & de Lima, R. C. (2010). Consumer
reactions to CSR: A Brazilian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 91,
291-310.
Catalino, L. I., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). A Tuesday in the life of a flourisher:
The role of positive emotional reactivity in optimal mental health. Emotion, 11,
938-950.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating
corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organisational effectiveness: A
multiple-constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5, 211-217.
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique
and future directions. Organization Science, 22, 1203-1213.
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312-322.
Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1975). Business and society: Environment and
responsibility. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Dodd, E. M., Jr. (1932). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law
Review, 45, 1145-1163.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and
NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 47-73.
Dunphy, D. G., & Benn, S. (2003). Organizational change for corporate sustainability. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Eells, R., & Walton, C. (1961). Conceptual foundations of business. Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin.
Elbing, A. O., & Elbing, C. J. (1964). The value issue in business. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing Limited.
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders pressure
on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of
Business Ethics, 122, 53-63.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Frederick, W. C. (1987). Theories of corporate social performance. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions: The emerging science
of positive psychology is coming to understand why its good to feel good.
American Scientist, 91, 330-335.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics
of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678-686.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
290
Freeman, R. E. (2004, September). Stakeholder theory and corporate responsibility: Some practical questions. 3rd Annual Colloquium European Academy of
Business in Society, Gent, Belgium.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15, 364-369.
French, P. (1979). The corporation as moral person. American Philosophical
Quarterly, 3, 207-215.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Godfrey, P. C., & Hatch, N. W. (2007). Researching corporate social responsibility:
An agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 87-98.
Grant, A. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee
participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37,
589-615.
Griffin, J. J., Bryant, A., & Koerber, C. P. (2015). Corporate responsibility and
employee relations: From external pressure to action. Group & Organization
Management, Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059601114560168
Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2014). Legal versus Normative CSR: Differential impact on
analyst dispersion, stock return volatility, cost of capital, and firm value. Journal
of Business Ethics, 128, 1-20.
Hart, S. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard
Business Review, 75, 66-76.
Hayek, F. A. (1944). Scientism and the study of society. Economica, New Series, 11,
27-39.
Hillenbrand, C., & Money, K. (2015). Unpacking the mechanism by which psychological ownership manifests at the level of the individual: A dynamic model of
identity and self. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23, 148-165.
Hillenbrand, C., Money, K., & Ghobadian, A. (2013). Unpacking the mechanism by
which corporate responsibility impacts stakeholder relationships. British Journal
of Management, 24, 127-146.
Jones, D. (2012). Who cares wins: Why good business is better business (Financial
Times Series). London, England: FT Publishing.
Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M., & Rufn, C. (2014). Reviewing a decade of research
on the base/bottom of the pyramid (BOP) concept. Business & Society, 53,
338-377.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a
theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34, 1152-1189.
Lawrence, P. R. (2010). Driven to lead: Good, bad and misguided leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawrence, P. R., & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: How human nature shapes our choices.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawton, T. C., & Rajwani, T. S. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge companion to nonmarket strategy. In Routledge companions in business, management and accounting series. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
291
Ghobadian et al.
Leach, M., Rokstrom, J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I. C., Stirling, A. C., Smith, A., &
Olsson, P. (2012). Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology & Society,
17, 11.
Levitt, T. (1958). The danger of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36,
41-50.
Lewis, T., Amini, F., & Lannon, R. (2000). A general theory of love. New York, NY:
Vintage Books.
Liedong, T. A., Ghobadian, A., Rajwani, T., & ORegan, N. (2015). Toward a view of
complementarity: Trust and policy influence effects of corporate social responsibility and corporate political activity. Group & Organization Management.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059601114560064
Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 1-7.
Littlewood, D. (2014). Cursed communities? Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR), Company Towns and the Mining Industry in Namibia. Journal of
Business Ethics, 120, 39-63.
London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2011). Next generation business strategies for the base
of the pyramid: New approaches for building mutual value. Upper Saddle, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Macmillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S., & Hillenbrand, C. (2004). Giving your
organisation SPIRIT: An overview and call to action for directors on issues of
corporate governance, corporate reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal
of General Management, 30, 15-42.
Manne, H., & Wallich, H. C. (1972). The modern corporation and social responsibility. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Marsden, C., & Andriof, J. (1998). Towards an understanding of corporate citizenship
and how to influence it. Citizenship Studies, 2, 329-352.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,
370-396.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30, 166-179.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy
of Management Review, 33, 404-424.
McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the
firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.
Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., Hunter, I., & Money, A. G. (2012). Modelling bi-directional research: A new approach to stakeholder theory. Journal of Strategy and
Management, 5(1), 5-24.
Money, K., Pain, S., & Hillenbrand, C. (2015, May 1). Better balance: A psychological approach to the problem of sustainability (Henley Discussion Paper JMC).
Henley-on-Thames, UK: Henley Business School.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266.
292
Nohria, N., Broysberg, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Employee motivation: A powerful new
Model. Harvard Business Review, 86, 78-85.
Ozar, D. T. (1979). The moral responsibility of corporations. In T. Donaldson
& P. Werhane (Eds.), Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities
create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39, 117-135.
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., ORegan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization
Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059601114560063
Pless, N. M. (2012). Social entrepreneurship in theory and practiceAn introduction.
Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 317-320.
Poposki, E. (2011). The blame game: Exploring the nature and correlates of attributions following work-family conflict. Group & Organization Management, 36,
499-525.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business
Review, 89, 62-77.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid.
Strategy and Business, 26. Retrieved from http://www.strategy-business.com/
article/11518
Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1975). Private management and public policy. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1981). Private management and public policy. California
Management Review, 23, 56-62.
Putnam, T. (1993). Boycotts are busting out all over. Business and Society Review,
85, 47-51.
Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D., & Kolk, A. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29,
72-91.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications
for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48,
899-931.
Seligman, M. E. (2011). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life.
New York, NY: Vintage books.
Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and
well-being. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17, 58-64.
Smith, A. (1776a). Theory of moral sentiments. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Smith, A. (1776b). The wealth of nations. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Steiner, G. A. (1972). Social policies for business. California Management Review,
15, 17-24.
293
Ghobadian et al.
Author Biographies
Abby Ghobadian is Professor of Organisational Performance and Head ofLeadership,
Organisations and Behaviour at Henley Business School at the University of Reading.
Abby is vice-president of the British Academy of Management (BAM), chairs its
research and development committee and is a founding editor of the Business Strategy
and Management Journal.
294
Kevin Money is Professor for Reputation and Responsible Leadership and Director
of the John Madejski Centre for Reputation at Henley Business School. Kevin is also
the Director of the Positive Psychology Forum, which aims to apply advances from
psychology to improve the relationships between business and society. He is the former Editor of the Journal of General Management and has published in outlets such
as the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of Business Ethics and the British
Journal of Management.
Carola Hillenbrand is Professor of Organizational Psychology and Postgraduate
Research Director at Henley Business School. She has published in academic outlets
such as the Journal of Business Ethics, British Journal of Management and Long
Range Planning and acts as an adviser to organizations on issues of responsibility,
reputation and stakeholder behaviour.