This article contributes to a thriving line of research that examines issue interpretation and social accounts in order to study the adoption and diffusion of organizational concepts and management practices. It employs the empirical example of the rise of CSR in Austria between 1990 and 2005 to investigate the complex role institutional pressures and social positions of actors play in the local adoption of globally theorized ideas. More specifically, the study reveals distinct patterns in rhetorical CSR adoption that illustrate the initial hesitation and reluctance of an established elite in the Austrian business community toward the Anglo-American notion of ‘explicit’ CSR, while non-elite actors who were less favorably positioned in the social order readily embraced the concept. It is in such a sense that CSR is nevertheless instrumentalized to challenge, reinterpret, or explicitly evoke the autochthonous idea of institutionalized social solidarity. Conceptually, this research takes into account social structure, actors’ positions in the social order, and resulting divergent adoption motivations – i.e., the individual, yet socially derived, relevance systems of actors – and relates them to mechanisms and processes of institutional change.

Available online 15 March 2013
Publication year: 2013
Source:Journal of Business Research



The base of the pyramid proposition holds that transnational corporations (TNCs) can profitably serve the needs of the poor at the base of the global economic pyramid. This article explores the ethical dimensions of business ventures targeting the 2.6billion moderate and extremely poor (MEP) at the base of the pyramid. It is shown that MEP populations are both cognitively and socially vulnerable, rendering them susceptible to harmful exploitation. We defend an empowerment theory of morally legitimate BoP business ventures and provide a multi-stage opportunity assessment process that allows TNC managers to determine when BoP ventures should be pursued and when they should be abandoned. This analysis is used to demonstrate the inadequacy of an instrumental, or economic, conception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to defend an ethical conception of CSR.

Available online 15 March 2013
Publication year: 2013
Source:Journal of Business Research



This article reviews experimental evidence on the effects of policies intended to promote behavior by firms that is more socially responsible and less socially irresponsible. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can provide firms with opportunities for profit, but changes are likely to increase total welfare only if firms adopt them freely and without taxpayer subsidies. Mandated CSR circumvents people's own plans and preferences, distorts the allocation of resources, and increases the likelihood of irresponsible decisions. Evidence that government policies will increase welfare and a compelling argument that proven benefits outweigh reductions in freedom are necessary in order to justify CSR mandates. To date, this has apparently not been achieved. Corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) is concerned with whether firms undertake harmful actions that managers would be unwilling to undertake acting for themselves, or that a reasonable person would expect to cause substantive net harm when all parties are considered. Markets in which stakeholders are free to make decisions in their own interests provide some protection against CSI. Tort and contract law provide additional protection. Nevertheless, managers sometimes act irresponsibly. Codes of ethics that require fair treatment of stakeholders while pursuing long-term profit can reduce the risk of irresponsible decisions. Management support and stakeholder accounting are important for successful implementation. Firms may wish to consider these measures; many already have.

Available online 13 March 2013
Publication year: 2013
Source:Journal of Business Research



This introduction outlines the development of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) from its origins to today, identifies the major trends in the field, and points towards some troubling developments in the recent CSR debate. This sets the scene for the papers included in this special issue. A brief summary for each of the 17 articles included in this special issue follows. The article also concludes with a note of appreciation to the reviewers of the nearly 100 submissions received and to Arch G. Woodside the Journal of Business Research Editor-in-Chief.