Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

JBR-07717; No of Pages 7

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Corporate social responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to aspecial topic section

Patrick E. Murphy a,⁎, Bodo B. Schlegelmilch b

a Department of Marketing, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, 46556, United Statesb Institute for International Marketing Management, WU Vienna, Austria

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: Murphy.72@nd.edu (P.E. Murphy)

(B.B. Schlegelmilch).

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001

Please cite this article as:Murphy, P.E., & Schlspecial topic section, Journal of Business Rese

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 October 2012Received in revised form 1 November 2012Accepted 1 November 2012Available online xxxx

Keywords:Corporate social responsibilityCorporate social irresponsibilityCSR and CSI researchCorporate ethics

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

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a term that was introducedsome time ago but only seemed to gain serious traction in the 21stcentury. Both corporations and scholars from many disciplines arenow proponents of this practice. However, critics from the media,industry and academia are skeptical by pointing to the fact that CSRis an elusive concept that still lacks a generally accepted definition,and have begun writing about corporate social irresponsibility (CSI).This paper examines both of these concepts in some detail.

This analysis starts with the history and foundation of CSR andexamines its early proponents. Then, CSI is contrasted with CSR. Thearticle discusses several positive, as well as troubling, trends in thedevelopment of these important issues. The overview continues with asummary of the contributions to this special issue. The discussion con-cludes with a note of thanks.

2. History and foundations of CSR

Howard Bowen (1953) is thought by many to be the father of theCSRmovement. Hewrote an influential article (Bowen, 1953) outliningthe “social responsibilities of businessmen” (almost no women were inmanagement positions at that time). Bowen (1953, p. 6) defines thesocial responsibilities of business at that time as “the obligations ofbusinessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions or

, Bodo.Schlegelmilch@wu.ac.at

rights reserved.

egelmilch, B.B., Corporate sociarch (2013), http://dx.doi.org

follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objec-tives and values of society.” His focus was squarely on the decisionmaking by these managers and the obligations to the larger society,not just those internal to the business. This situation can be contrastedwith CSR today which emphasizes larger corporate and institutionalpractices rather than the decision making of individual managers.

Archie Carroll might be considered the “son” of Bowen becausehe, more than any other single academic, has made CSR his life's work.Carroll didmove the focus frommanagers to corporations but his under-lying themewas similar to Bowen's in that he addressed the responsibil-ities of companies to society that extend beyond the narrow stockholderorientation (Carroll, 1979, 1999). Carroll (1979) outlines four types ofsocial responsibilities of business: economic, legal, ethical, and philan-thropic. Although this classification has come under criticism in recentyears, it still is the typology that many use to this day (Enderle, 2010).In his most recent book, Carroll states the rationale for businessadopting CSR: “After considering the pros and cons of corporate socialresponsibility, most businesses today embrace the concept, but insiston linking discretionary aspects of corporate citizenship with businessobjectives and strategy” (Carroll, 2009, p. 21). Thus, executives continueto argue that that there must be a ‘business case’ for CSR.

In the 1980s and 1990s scholars in both the United States andEurope helped to develop the field of CSR. Initially, in Europe thefocus was more on the institutionalization of business ethics thanon CSR (Langlois & Schlegelmilch, 1990; Robertson & Schlegelmilch,1993) and, as a separate debate, on environmental protection andsustainability (Balderjahn, 1988). Only later, both social responsibilityof corporations and environmental concerns merged into a more ho-listic understanding of CSR that included environmental but also cor-porate ethics (Schlegelmilch, 1994). However, much of the discussion

al responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001

2 P.E. Murphy, B.B. Schlegelmilch / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

was still centering on whether CSR would pay off for corporations(Balabanis, Phillips, & Lyall, 1998), that is, the business case for CSR.

In comparison to the US, the holistic discussion of CSR issues inEurope occurred later. A possible rationale may lie in the traditionallystronger social security systems in Europe and the legal anchoring ofeconomic responsibility in European corporations. However, recentlythe role of CSR has strengthened, as the balance of power is perceivedto shift from governments to corporations; a trend attributed to glob-alization and in particular to an insufficiently regulated capital market(Rothkopf, 2012; Wühle, 2007).

In an analysis of the many definitions of CSR, Matten and Moon(2008) suggest that a lack of a common definition of CSR is to beexpected because (a) CSR is an umbrella term for many related con-cepts and (b) CSR naturally evolves over time as values change.Thus, CSR might be seen as inherently subjective. However, at itscore, CSR “reflects the social imperatives and the social consequencesof business success. Thus, CSR (and its synonyms) empirically consistsof clearly articulated and communicated policies and practices of corpo-rations that reflect business responsibility for some of thewider societalgood” (Matten & Moon, 2008, p. 405).

3. Corporate social irresponsibility

Corporations have long been criticized for irresponsible actionssuch as pollution, unfair treatment of employees and suppliers, sellingshoddy products to consumers and a host of other activities. Bakan(2004) and Mitchell (2001) and many popular press articles decrythe power and responsibility differential for large corporations. This ar-gument is founded on firms not accepting their CSR. The label that as-sociates with such acts is the “iron law of responsibility” which statesthat the social responsibility of business should be proportional to itspower; the greater the power an organization has, the greater the so-cial responsibility it should exercise (Davis, 1960). This notion goeson to indicate that if companies do not use power responsibly, the in-fluencewill be reduced by society through legislation or anothermeans.

The study and examination of CSI in the academic literature wasintroduced in an article in the Journal of Business Research in 1977.Armstrong (1977, p. 185) defines CSI: “A socially irresponsible act isa decision to accept an alternative that is thought by the decisionmaker to be inferior to another alternative when the effects upon allparties are considered. Generally this involves a gain by one party atthe expense of the total system” (emphasis in original).

The term has received greater attention in recent years with fifteenarticles appearing in the last ten years on the topic (see Lin-Hi andMullerin this issue). In one of the most in-depth examinations of CSI, Jones,Bowd, and Tench (2009) argue that CSR and CSI are two ends of a con-tinuum. Table 1 presents a contrast between the two approaches. Inareas such as ethics, environmental responsibility and human resources,the contrast between CSI and CSR is apparent. The strict and narrow

Table 1CSI and CSR.

CSI C

Environmental degradation and pollution are inevitable and little precaution is taken Et

Employees are a resource to be exploited EMinimal community consultation and involvement MOnly basic, and sometimes reluctant, compliance with legislation pertaining to CSR C

lEthical issues are on the periphery ENew technologies should be developed and introduced to the market N

mTreating suppliers and customers unfairly WSustainability defined in terms of business survival S

aProfit is the sole purpose of business and should be achieved at any cost P

Source: Adapted from Jones et al. (2009).

Please cite this article as:Murphy, P.E., & Schlegelmilch, B.B., Corporate socispecial topic section, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org

profit orientation characterizes these firms while firms espousing CSRtake into consideration multiple stakeholders in all decision making. Itshould be added that the CSI firms may be operating in a legal fashionbut they do not see a larger social role for the firm.

Lange andWashburn (2012) propose three primary factors under-lying corporate social irresponsibility attributions. The first is effectundesirability based on threat avoidance, moral impulses and normsof moral behavior. The layman's term they use for this factor is self-preservation. Second, corporate culpability which is based on infer-ences of causality and judgment of moral responsibility is another con-tributing factor to CSI. The third one is affected party non-complicity;it influences both those that are directly affected by product safetyviolations but also those indirectly impacted like the citizens in theGulf of Mexico from the oil spill of 2010. These factors are expandedin the development of nine propositions regarding CSI. This theoreticalmodel should spur further research in better understanding the com-ponents of corporate social irresponsibility.

4. Recent trends in CSR and CSI research

Although articles on CSR appear with great frequency, the focushere is on three recent contributions that seem to advance the field insubstantial ways. The first is tying CSRmore directly to ethical behaviorof individuals and organizations. Over the years, some observers haveargued that CSR and ethics are complementary approaches with CSRbeing primarily external to the firm and ethics being mostly internal.The CSR term often subsumes ethical behavior and as mentioned aboveby in some of European research and it is often viewed as an umbrellaterm including ethics, corporate citizenship and other socially orientedactivities. Fig. 1 shows how CSR, ethics and corporate citizenship fittogether in one conceptualization of this entire area.

“Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has never had greaterprominence” is the opening sentence of a recent article attemptingto integrate Kohlberg's model of moral developmentwith the CSR liter-ature (Mason & Simmons, 2011). This article shows how the conceptu-alizations of CSR tied to moral reasoning enables an organization'soverall CSR stance to be located on a social responsibility continuum.A firm's higher levels of CSR contribute to greater financial performanceand enhance the company's human resources andmarketing functions.This more integrative approach to CSR seems to havemuch promise forthe future in a greater integration of ethics with CSR.

Laczniak and Murphy (2013) specifically link CSR with ethicalmarketing activities. These authors indicate that CSR and marketingethics are related concepts. They describe corporate social responsi-bility in marketing as encompassing marketing's obligations to all itsstakeholders to ‘fairly’ integrate stakeholder claims with the firm'smoral and legal duties to its constituents and society at large. This de-scription places CSR as a normative concept in contrast to the discus-sion above by Carroll where most firms view CSR as purely an

SR

nvironmental degradation and pollution is not inevitable and should not beolerated, and it is important to raise awareness and commit to actionmployees are a resource to be valuedaximize community consultation and involvementompliance with, as well as policy and practical actions that go beyond the minimumegislative requirements for CSRthical issues are central to the organizationew technologies should developed, tested, evaluated, and only introduced to thearket if they do not cause harmorking fairly with suppliers and customers

ustainability defined in terms of business, environmental and community survivalnd mutual growthrofit is one of many purposes of business and should be achieved, but not at any cost

al responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001

Fig. 1. Corporate citizenship and constitutive parts of CSR.Source: Windsor (2006, p. 95).

3P.E. Murphy, B.B. Schlegelmilch / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

instrumental concept. Laczniak and Murphy (2013) single out Vaaland,Heide, and Gronhaug's (2008) article as the one that addresses themar-keting ethics/CSR interface with the greatest sophistication. This workand the one cited directly above show that the CSR and ethicsinterface warrants continued examination by scholars in the variousbusiness disciplines.

Examining the association between CSR and CSI corporate gover-nance is a second trend in the recent literature. With the spate ofbusiness scandals both in the US and Europe, greater attention isbeing devoted to corporate governance since many of the unethicaland eventually illegal activities within business often occurred be-cause of the lack of board oversight and good governance protocols.Kang and Moon (2012) examine the institutional complimentaritybetween corporate governance and CSR. They discuss this link acrossseveral different country groupings and conclude:

In summary, this paper has examined the mechanism by whichnational institutional arrangements shape CSR motivations. We haveprovided a definition of CSR that goes beyond the ‘voluntary’ to recog-nize that CSR assumes different forms and serves different functions indifferent contexts and at different times. This distinction has enabledus to consider the corporate governance system as the link betweennational institutions and firms' motivations for CSR and to specify thenature of this link as complementarity by a logic of similarity (Kang &Moon, 2012, p. 100).

Another approach expands on governance to a transnational per-spective and locates CSR in three levels of governance (Brammer,Jackson, & Matten, 2012). The first is the role CSR plays within trans-national or global institutions themselves. For example, the UnitedNations Global Compact, the International Standards Organization(ISO 26000) and various OECD guidelines assist companies in devel-oping their CSR policies. The second role is that multinational corpo-rations (MNC) seem to institutionalize CSR within their transnationalorganizational structure. Global companies like Coca-Cola, Nestle,Unilever and Walmart are good examples of this role. Third, a “slightlymore sophisticated element in transnational governance and CSR focus-es on how national institutions in the home or host country of a MNCshape and institutionalize CSR practices (Brammer et al., 2012, p. 17).For example, the fair trade movement has implications for both homeand host country policies.

The upshot of this emerging research area within CSR is that cor-porate governance practices must be increasingly viewed as havingexternal and social components as well as the internal workings of thefirm. This expansion means that governance policies must now payclose attention to CSR activities (Jamali, Safieddine, & Rabbath, 2008)where in the past theymay have been left to senior or even lower levelsof management. As corporate governance addresses how companiesdischarge their legal responsibilities, it represents the basis on which

Please cite this article as:Murphy, P.E., & Schlegelmilch, B.B., Corporate socispecial topic section, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org

CSR can be built. In fact, Corporate Governance and CSR are closelycoupled principles that will have to be increasingly discussed together.

The third trend is the increasing use of CSR for strategic purposes.Many business and popular press articles chronicle this move by majorcorporations around the world. One recent article characterizes CSR inte-gration as ingrained or as an add-on (Vallaster, Lindgreen, &Maon, 2012).(This finding relates closely to the article by Öberseder, Schlegelmilchand Murphy in this issue.) The ingrained group is further divided intoCSR performers and CSR entrepreneurs while the add-ons are calledvocal CSR converts. One other CSR approach was called quietly consci-entious. The authors provide company examples for each of these fourgroups. From a strategic perspective, these authors indicate that firmsshould self-identify which of the four categories best describes themand develop CSR strategies commensurate with their current position.The article concludes with several strong guidelines that companiesshould follow.

Reduce stakeholder ambiguity by doing as you say. When the CSRnotion becomes an integral element of the brand,well-aligned corpo-rate actions and brand promises actually build trust and credibility.Define your strategic aspiration: Leader or follower. For a sustain-able competitive advantage, companies must define the strategicCSR topics that are their main focus, as well as what they wantto achieve and whether they want to lead or follow.Provide necessary resources with a long-term perspective. Nocompany has an exclusive license on doing good. Other companiescan freely cite their green and social initiatives, honesty, and trans-parency, which may make differentiation difficult.If you get caught in the act: What to do. For a company that promisesand fails to deliver on a CSR promise, there are three options: dial backclaims, change practices, or refocus the corporate brand. (Vallasteret al., 2012, p. 55)

The strategic approach to CSR has been popularized by a numberof writers (Porter & Kramer, 2006, 2011). They argue that the prevail-ing approach to CSR is fundamentally flawed in that it pits corporateinterests against societal interestswhen they are clearly interdependent.CSR should not be viewed as a zero-sumgame but needs to take accountof the interrelationships between business and society by embeddingCSR in strategies and practices of companies. However, in reality thereis still a ‘large disconnect’between strategy andCSR. In 2011, for example,members of The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD)were surveyed about the priorities of their companies; only 1.5% ofcorporate directors picked “Corporate Social Responsibility” amongthe highest priorities for the board (Crespin, 2012).

5. Troubling developments regarding CSR

Although a number of positive trends are occurring in both CSRresearch and practice, two specific recent developments are troubling.The first is that the original doctrine of CSR was not intended to bean instrumental strategy to be used as a competitive advantage for in-dividual firms (Acquier, Gond, & Pasquero, 2011). Bowen, as notedabove, saw social and charitable obligations as stemming from society.Bowen (1953) writes that: “those who own property have the duty ofusing and administering it, not exclusively for their own purpose, butinways thatwill serve the needs of thewhole society” (p. 53). In echo-ing this to them, Laczniak andMurphy (2012) argue that stakeholdersshould be treated in a normative way.

The second trend of concern is that both some academics andpractitioners are dropping the ‘S’ from CSR. They refer only to corpo-rate responsibility. The likely rationale for this change is that societalobligations are difficult to pin down (Devinney, 2009). One danger ofthis line of reasoning is that it implies that social obligations are at theoption of the corporation rather than being an obligation to the public

al responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001

4 P.E. Murphy, B.B. Schlegelmilch / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

and society at large. Another problem with dropping the ‘S’ in CSR isthat it ignores the presupposition that business is a social institution.Since corporations receive their charters from states or governments,they are thought to, at least in part, as a social institution. Furthermore,the secondary effects of off-shoring and the use of labor in developingcountries where the rule of law is not strong argue for a broader rolefor corporations, especially larger ones.

6. The contributions in this special issue

The seventeen articles selected for this special issue capture abroad range of perspectives on CSR and CSI. They also illustrate mul-tiple research approaches, spanning from conceptual contributions tostructural equation modeling. Hopefully, the multitude of methodo-logical approaches encourages researchers to explore paradigms out-side of their own training and research mindset. The articles arecategorized into distinct groups, based on the perspectives the re-searchers take. These are: consumer perspectives, financial/investmentperspectives, marketing perspectives, conceptual and theoretical issuesaswell as environmental perspectives. Naturally, there tends to be someoverlap and many of the papers are not exclusively taking a single van-tage point. Nevertheless, this rough categorization will help to steer thereaders into the right direction.

7. Consumer perspectives

All four contributions published in this section focus on consumerexpectations and consumer responses to CSR and CSI. It becomesapparent that there is a great deal of skepticism among consumerstoward CSR claims, and that consumers are willing to punish CSI. Con-trasting consumer perceptions with corporate views of CSR explicatesfor whom and for what corporations are held responsible. The fourpapers are:

7.1. Silvia Grappi, Simona Romani and Richard P. Bagozzi: Consumerresponse to corporate irresponsible behavior: Emotions and virtues

The first paper of this special issue focuses on consumers' word ofmouth and protest behaviors against corporate irresponsibility. Thestudy explains how consumers' negative moral emotional responsesto corporate infractions instigate, in combination with other-regardingvirtues, negative word of mouth and protest toward the corporation.Negative moral emotions include contempt, anger, and disgust; where-as other-regarding virtues entail justice, beneficence, and communalcooperation.

7.2. Vernon H. Sweetin, Lynette L. Knowles, John H. Summey andKand S. McQueen: Willingness to punish the corporate brand forcorporate social irresponsibility

Remaining with the theme of consumer reactions toward CSR andCSI, the second study investigates the consumer's willingness to punishcorporate social irresponsibility and reward corporate social respon-sibility and environmental friendliness. The study furthers researchon CSR, the consumer and on brand personality dimensions. It usestheories about punishment found in the psychology and philosophyliteratures and relates them to consumer stakeholders.

7.3. Dionysis Skarmeas and Constantinos N. Leonidou: When consumersdoubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism

The third paper focuses on the rise of consumer skepticism towardcorporate CSR claims. Faced with a plethora of such claims and the re-ality of numerous reported incidents of corporate misconduct, manyconsumers doubt the extent to which companies live up to their pro-fessed standards. Drawing on attribution theory, this study sets out to

Please cite this article as:Murphy, P.E., & Schlegelmilch, B.B., Corporate socispecial topic section, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org

explain how consumer skepticism toward the CSR of grocery retailersdevelops and influences important consumer-related outcomes.

7.4. Magdalena Öberseder, Bodo B. Schlegelmilch and Patrick E. Murphy:A comparison of CSR practices and consumer perceptions

Consumer perceptions are also central to the fourth contributionto this special issue of JBR. However, this time consumer perceptionsare contrastedwith corporate views. The paper offers a grounded theoryof CSR domains that explains how corporations and consumers viewCSR by explicating both forwhomand forwhat corporations are held re-sponsible. Furthermore, the article presents two tripartite classificationsof corporate stages of CSR development and corresponding consumers'perceptions.

8. Financial and investment perspectives

The three papers included in the next section all center on thefinancial impact of CSR and CSI. The findings indicate that employeerights protection in China improve financial performance of organiza-tions, but also show that the verdict is still open regarding investors'reaction to CSR and CSI events. To this end, it is not surprising that thefinal paper in this section calls into question the financial sector's abilityto ‘heal itself.’ The three papers are:

8.1. Christopher Groening and Vamsi K. Kanuri: Investor reaction topositive and negative corporate social events

This paper scrutinizes the financial impact of CSR and CSI. Thefindings show that almost half of the time, a CSR event results in anegative return, or a CSI event leads to a positive return. Thus, situationsarise when investors may even mete out punishment for a positive CSRevent and reward firms for initiating a CSI activity.

8.2. Peter K.C. Lee, Antonio K.W. Lau and Tai C.E. Cheng: The relationshipbetween employee rights protection and financial performance

Having just learned from the previous paper that CSI might some-times result in positive returns for investors, Lee, Lau, and Cheng notethat the business performance of well-known global brands havebeen badly affected by irresponsible employee practices of their sup-pliers. Examining manufacturers and suppliers in various industriesin China, the authors argue that organizations should adopt employeerights protection to improve their corporate reputation and financialperformance.

8.3. Christian Herzig and Jeremy Moon: Discourses on corporate socialir/responsibility in the financial sector

The last paper in this section explores how UK financial and ethicalmedia construct both the financial sector's social ir/responsibility inthe context of the financial crisis and resultant recession, and also themotivation and means of the sector and other actors to respond tothese social calamities. Four discourses emerge from the analysis, re-vealing tension in the sector's ability to heal itself.

9. Marketing perspectives

The first two papers in the marketing section are concerned withthe way in which companies publicize their CSR strategies in printadvertisements, and how to best design the brand pages of corporatesocial network sites (SNSs). The third paper explores the ability ofcorporations to include recycled materials in luxury clothing and in-dicates that consumer preferences constitute barriers to such goodintentions. The three papers include the following reports:

al responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001

5P.E. Murphy, B.B. Schlegelmilch / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

9.1. Keith J. Perks, Francisca Farache, Paurav Shukla, and Aidan Berry:Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility inCSR advertisements

This study develops and empirically evaluates a conceptual frame-work about how companies publicize their CSR strategies throughprint advertisements. The findings identify impression managementapproaches firms adopt to legitimize their CSR strategies through‘informing’ (CSR) and/or ‘diverting attention’ (CSI). The authors con-clude that CSR advertisements contain a limited amount of substantialinformation and third-party associations which reflects possible latentCSI motives.

9.2. Hyun. J. Jeong, Hye-Jin Paek and Mira Lee: Relative effectiveness ofcorporate social responsibility on social network sites

This research explores how marketers could maximize favorableconsumer responses to brand pages on social network sites (SNSs)through the strategic use of two types of corporate social responsibil-ity (CSR) cause-related marketing (CRM) and cause sponsorship (CS).Among others, the results show that CRM leads to the greatest inten-tion to join the brand page on SNSs, and that the effects of CSR differdepending on the type of brand (symbolic and functional).

9.3. Mohamed A. Achabou and Sihem Dekhili: Luxury and sustainabledevelopment: is there a match?

This article examines the propensity of consumers to considerrecycled materials in luxury clothing purchases. The findings indicatethat incorporating recycled materials in such goods affects consumerpreferences negatively. Despite the increasing concerns of consumersabout the preservation of the planet, the responsible behavior of thebrand remains a secondary selection criterion and consumers of luxurygoods primarily focus on the intrinsic quality of the product.

10. Conceptual and theoretical issues

The five papers in this section feature all make very noteworthyconceptual and theoretical contributions, albeit looking at CSR andCSI from rather different angles. The first paper explores the ethicaldimension of business ventures targeting consumers at the base ofthe pyramid, and the second appraises the marketing of CSR. Next isa paper that argues the case against mandated CSR and for stake-holders to make free decisions to provide protection against CSI. Thefollowing paper of this section then highlights the relationship betweenCSR and CSI, while the final paper contributes toward a general theoryof CSR and CSI and argues that a universal conception of CSR and CSIare feasible. The papers are:

10.1. Denis G. Arnold and Andres Valentin: Corporate social responsibilityat the base of the pyramid

This paper explores the ethical dimensions of business venturestargeting the 2.6 billion moderate and extremely poor (MEP) at thebase of the pyramid. The authors show that the MEP are both cogni-tively and socially vulnerable, rendering them susceptible to harmfulexploitation. They use the analysis to demonstrate the inadequacy ofan economic conception of CSR and to defend an ethical conception ofCSR.

10.2. Ajnesh Prasad and Ingo Holzinger: Seeing through smoke andmirrors: A critical analysis of marketing CSR

This paper adopts a critical management studies perspective toappraise the phenomenon of marketing corporate social responsibility(CSR). The authors view this perspective as particularly beneficial as it

Please cite this article as:Murphy, P.E., & Schlegelmilch, B.B., Corporate socispecial topic section, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org

render visible the ‘hidden’ ideologies that are the corollary of corporatemarketing of CSR initiatives. Invoking the concept of false consciousnessof ideology clarifies the dynamics of this phenomenon.

10.3. J. Scott Armstrong, and Kesten C. Green: Effects of corporate socialresponsibility and irresponsibility policies

This article reviews evidence on the effects of policies intendedto promote behavior by firms that are more socially responsible andless socially irresponsible. The authors argue that mandated CSR cir-cumvents people's own plans and preferences, distorts the allocationof resources, and increases the likelihood of irresponsible decisions.Similarly, the authors view markets in which stakeholders are freeto make decisions in their own interests as providing some protectionagainst corporate social irresponsibility (CSI).

10.4. Nick Lin-Hi and Karsten Müller: The bottom line of CSR: Preventingcorporate social irresponsibility

CSR is predominantly understood as a special sort of contribution tosociety and is thereby linked with the idea of “doing good.” In contrastto this, the challenge with regard to CSI lies in successfully “avoidingbad.” Lin-Hi and Müller highlight the relationship between CSR andCSI and argue that firms need manage “doing good” and “avoidingbad” simultaneously.

10.5. DuaneWindsor: corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility:A positive theory approach

This paper aims to contribute toward a general theory of CSR andCSI. The author argues that universal conceptions of CSR and CSI arefeasible and can incorporate multiple options and permit variation andevolution. To inform political processes, a logically universal schemais proposed. Ongoing institutionalization of multiple regimes for CSIcontrol and CSR promotion involves fragmented persuasion and nego-tiation processes at national and international levels.

11. Environmental perspectives

The two final papers in this special issue of the JBR focus on environ-mental issues. The first contribution researches the impact of perceivedenvironmental performance on purchase intention, and the last ex-plores the impact of competitive intensity on sustainability. The papersinclude the following reports:

11.1. Martin Grimmer and Timothy Bingham: Company environmentalperformance and consumer purchase intentions

This large-scale quasi-experimental study is set in the Australianmobile phonemarket. It shows that participants report higher purchaseintention for products from high versus low perceived environmentalperformance (PEP) companies, and that participants' environmental in-volvement (EI) and product price moderate this relationship. Contraryto expectations, participants with high EI are as price sensitive as thosewith low EI regarding products from high PEP companies.

11.2. J. Kemper, M. Reimann, O. Schilke, A. Engelen, X. Wang, andM. Brettel: Competition-motivated corporate social responsibility

In this large empirical study across several industries and countries,the Kemper et al. examine CSR as moderator of the relationship be-tween marketing capabilities and firm performance. To this end, thestudy follows prior research that calls for an inclusion of competitiveintensity as a boundary condition to this moderation effect. As hy-pothesized, three-way interactions among competitive intensity, CSR,

al responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001

6 P.E. Murphy, B.B. Schlegelmilch / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

and marketing capabilities had significant relationships with firmperformance.

Acknowledgment of reviewers

The guest editors gratefully acknowledge the following individualswho served as reviewers for this special issue of the Journal of BusinessResearch on Corporate Social Responsibility and Irresponsibility:Andrew Abela, Catholic University of America;Mohamed Akli Achabou,IPAG Paris; Björn Ambos, University of St. Gallen; Denis G. Arnold, TheUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte; Ioannis Assiouras, ToulouseBusiness School.

Patrice Auger, University of Melbourne; Vidya N. Awasthi, SeattleUniversity; Claudio Baccarani, University of Verona; Denise Baden,University of Southampton; Richard P. Bagozzi, University ofMichigan;George Balabanis, City University London; Jos Bartels, WageningenUniversity; Karen L. Becker-Olsen, Lehigh University; Stephanie Bertels,Simon Fraser University; Enrique Bigné Alcañiz, University of Valencia;Joern Block, Universität Trier; Petra Bouvain, University of Canberra;Kevin Bradford, University of Notre Dame; Tonya Bradford, Universityof Notre Dame; Jeffery Bray, Bournemouth University; Barbara Brenner,Vienna University of Economics and Business; Peggy Simcic Brønn,Norwegian School of Management; Roger Calantone, Michigan StateUniversity; Marylyn Carrigan, Coventry University; Robert Caruana,University of Nottingham; Itziar Castello, Copenhagen Business School;Brian Chabowski, University of Tulsa; Ruei-Yuan Chang, National ChungHsing University; Heng-Yu Chang, National Cheng Kung University;Andreas Chatzidakis, Royal Holloway, University of London; JeremyCheah, University of Sheffield; Adrian (Wai Kong) Cheung, CurtinUniversity; Rebecca Chung-hee Kim, University of Nottingham; RoccoCiciretti, University of Rome; Roberta Costa, University of Rome TorVergata; Chris Cowton, University of Huddersfield; Wesley Cragg, YorkUniversity; Victoria L. Crittenden, Boston College; Rosa Maria Dangelico,SapienzaUniversity of Rome;KirkDavidson,Mount St.Mary's University;Iain Davies, University of Bath; Patrick De Pelsmacker, University ofAntwerp; Sihem Dekhili, University of Strasbourg.

Geert Demuijnck, EDHECBusiness School;MarshaDickson, Universityof Delaware.

Desislava Dikova, Vienna University of Economics and Business;Jamali Dima, American University of Beirut; Jonathan P. Doh, VillanovaUniversity; Thomas Donaldson, Wharton School; Giana M. Eckhardt,Suffolk University; Georges Enderle, University of Notre Dame.

Christine Ennew, University of Nottingham; Bo Enquist, KarlstadUniversity; Lee Eun Mi, Ewha Womans University; Francisca Farache,University of Brighton; Igor Filatotchev, Vienna University of Eco-nomics and Business; R. Edward Freeman, University of Virginia.

John F. Gaski, University of Notre Dame; Paul Gibbs, MiddlesexUniversity; Heribert Gierl, University of Augsburg; Timothy J. Gilbride,University of Notre Dame; Mark Gleim, University of Toledo; RonaldGoldsmith, Florida State University; Tracy Gonzalez-Padron, Universityof Colorado; Elisabeth Götze, Vienna University of Economics andBusiness.

Martin Grimmer, University of Tasmania; Verena Gruber, ViennaUniversity of Economics and Business; John Halloran, University ofNotreDame; JaredHansen, TheUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte;Ronald Paul Hill, Villanova University; Christian Homburg, Universityof Mannheim; Reggy Hooghiemstra, University of Groningen; ShellyW. Howton, Villanova University; Frank Huber, Johannes GutenbergUniversity; Andrea Insch, University of Otago; Brian T. Jones, LeedsMetrepolitan University; Philippos Karipidis, Alexander Technologi-cal Educational Institute of Thessaloniki; William E. (Bill) Kilbourne,Clemson University; Thomas Kilian, University Koblenz — Landau;Thomas Klein, University of Toledo; Jette Steen Knudsen, CopenhagenBusiness School; Daniel Korschun, Drexel University; Eva Koscher,Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main; Tatjana Kostova, Vienna Uni-versity of Economics and Business; Robert Kudlak, Vienna University

Please cite this article as:Murphy, P.E., & Schlegelmilch, B.B., Corporate socispecial topic section, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org

of Economics and Business; Gene R Laczniak, Marquette University;Laure Lavorata, University Paris-Est.

Michal Lemanski, Vienna University of Economics and Business;Constantinos Leonidou, University of Leeds; Leonidas C. Leonidou, Uni-versity of Cyprus; Nick Lin-Hi, University of Mannheim; Ana Lisboa,Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão Portugal; Sofía López-Rodríguez,SKEMA Business School; Michael Luchs, Mason School of Business,College of William and Mary; Francois Maon, Université catholiquede Louvain; Katie McDermott, University of North Carolina; PeterMcGoldrick, University of Manchester; Abagail McWilliams, Universityof Illinois; JennyMish, University of Notre Dame; ChristofMiska, ViennaUniversity of Economics and Business; Vince Mitchell, City UniversityLondon.

Salmi Mohd Isa, University Sains Malaysia; Wanki Moon, SouthernIllinois University.

Alan Muller, University of Amsterdam; Phillip Christopher Nell,Copenhagen Business School; Andre Nijhof, Nyenrode Business Uni-versity; Laura Noval, Vienna University of Economics and Business;Carl Obermiller, Seattle University; Magdalena Öberseder, Vienna Uni-versity of Economics and Business; Marc Orlitzky, Pennsylvania StateUniversity Altoona.

Daniela Ortiz Avram,Management Center Innsbruck;DonO'Sullivan,The University of Melbourne; Guido Palazzo, University of Lausanne;Verena Patock, Vienna University of Economics and Business; EsbenRahbek Pedersen, Copenhagen Business School; John Peloza, FloridaState University; Keith J. Perks, University of Brighton; Dane K. Petersen,Missouri State University; Andreas Plank, University of Innsbruck; AlanPomering, University ofWollongong; John Pracejus, University of Alberta;Andrea Prothero, University College Dublin; Wojciech Przychodzen,Kozminski University; David Ricks, Vienna University of Economicsand Business; Diana Robertson, The Wharton School, University ofPennsylvania; Arie de Ruijter, Tilburg University; Martin Samy, LeedsMetrepolitan University; Nicholas J.C. Santos, Marquette University;Andreas Georg Scherer, University of Zurich; Philipp Schreck, Ludwig-Maximilians-University; Judith Schrempf, University of Richmond;Joyce Jingzhi Shang, Simon Fraser University; John Sherry, University ofNotre Dame; Paurav Shukla, University of Brighton; Christina Sichtmann,University of Vienna.

Dionisios Skarmeas, Athens University of Economics and Business;Andrea J. S. Stanaland, University of Radford; Alexander Stich, WHU—

Otto Beisheim School of Management; Markus Stiglbauer, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg; Vanessa Streik, RotterdamSchool of Management, Erasmus University; Jordi Surroca, UniversityCarlos III de Madrid; Valerie Swaen, Université catholique de Louvain;Lorraine Sweeney, Dublin Institute of Technology; Ilona Szöcs, ViennaUniversity of Economics and Business; Karin Teichmann, University ofInnsbruck; Jochen Theis, University of Duisburg-Essen; Duygu Türker,Yaşar University; Joelle Vanhamme, EDHEC Business School; PavlosA. Vlachos, Athens University of Economics and Business; MarcusWagner, University of Würzburg.

GianfrancoWalsh, Jena University; LeiWang, University of Helsinki;Josh Wiener, Oklahoma State University; Oliver Williams, University ofNotre Dame.

DuaneWindsor, RiceUniversity; Yi Youjae, SeoulNationalUniversity;Wenlong Yuan, University of Lethbridge; Stelios C. Zyglidopoulos, Uni-versity of Cambridge.

Acknowledgement and special thanks

When we developed the call-for-papers for this special issue, ArchWoodside, the Journal of Business Research editor, strongly encour-aged us to include corporate social irresponsibility in our call. This de-cision turned out to be a prescient one, as we received a substantialnumber of papers that focused on CSI as well as CSR. In fact, almosthalf of the papers published in this special issue either focused

al responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001

7P.E. Murphy, B.B. Schlegelmilch / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

specifically on CSI or include a comparison with CSR. We are gratefulfor his guidance on this issue.

Given the large number of papers submitted, we also heavily re-lied on the support of nearly 160 reviewers. These colleagues donatedconsiderable time and expertise to this special issue and deserve creditand our gratitude.

References

Acquier, A., Gond, J. -P., & Pasquero, J. (2011). Rediscovering Howard Bowen's legacy:The unachieved agenda and continuing relevance of social responsibilities of busi-nessman. Business & Society, 50(4), 580–606.

Armstrong, J. S. (1977). Social irresponsibility in management. Journal of BusinessResearch, 5(3), 185–213.

Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York:Free Press.

Balabanis, G., Phillips, H. C., & Lyall, J. (1998). Corporate social responsibility and economicperformance in the top British companies: Are they linked? European Business Review,98(1), 25–44.

Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictorsof ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of Business Research, 17(1),51–56.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper.Brammer, S., Jackson, G., &Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional

theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 3–28.Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.

Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional con-

struct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.Carroll, A. B. (2009). Business ethics: Brief readings on vital topics. New York: Routledge.Crespin, R. (2012).Where CSRfits on the board's agenda, NACDdirectorship. http://www.

directorship.com/where-csr-fits-on-the-boards-agenda (accessed Oct. 28, 2012)Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California

Management Review, 2(3), 70–77.Devinney, T. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation amyth? The good, the bad, and

the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2),44.

Enderle, G. (2010). Clarifying the terms of business ethics and CSR. Business EthicsQuarterly, 20(4), 730–732.

Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporatesocial responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: AnInternational Review, 16(5), 443–459.

Jones, B., Bowd, R., & Tench, R. (2009). “Corporate irresponsibility and corporate socialresponsibility: Competing realities. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(3), 300–310.

Please cite this article as:Murphy, P.E., & Schlegelmilch, B.B., Corporate socispecial topic section, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org

Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2012). Institutional complementarity between corporate gover-nance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis ofthree capitalisms. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 85–108.

Laczniak, G., & Murphy, P. (2012). Stakeholder theory and marketing: Moving from afirm-centric to a societal perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2).

Laczniak, G., & Murphy, P. (2013). The Relationship between Marketing Ethics and Cor-porate Social Responsibility: Serving Stakeholders and the Common Good. In R.Hill, & R. Langan (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Marketing and Corporate Social Re-sponsibility.. London: Elgar.

Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate socialirresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300–326.

Langlois, C., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1990). Do corporate codes of ethics reflect nationalcharacter? Evidence from Europe and the United States. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 21(4), 519–539.

Mason, C., & Simmons, J. (2011). Forward looking or looking unaffordable? Utilisingacademic perspectives on corporate social responsibility to assess the factorsinfluencing it adoption by business. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(2),159–176.

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A conceptual frameworkfor a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility and marketing:An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19.

Mitchell, L. (2001). Corporate irresponsibility: America's newest export. New Haven: CT:Yale University.

Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitiveadvantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12),78–88.

Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism —

and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2),62–77.

Robertson, D. C., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1993). Corporate institutionalization of ethicsin the United States and Great Britain. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(4), 301–312.

Rothkopf, D. (2012). Power, Inc.: The epic rivalry between big business and government—and the reckoning that lies ahead. New York: Farrar, Straus and Girox.

Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1994). Green, ethical and charitable: Another marketing ploy or anewmarketing era. In M. J. Baker (Ed.), Perspectives on Marketing Management, Vol. 4.(pp. 55–71)London: Wiley.

Vaaland, T. I., Heide, M., & Gronhaug, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Inves-tigating theory and research in the marketing context. European Journal of Market-ing, 42(9/10), 927.

Vallaster, C., Lindgreen, A., & Maon, F. (2012). Strategically leveraging corporate socialresponsibility: A corporate branding perspective. California Management Review,54(3), 34–60.

Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal ofManagement Studies, 43(1), 93–114.

Wühle, M. (2007). Mit CSR zum Unternehmenserfolg. Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung alsWertschöpfungsfaktor. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag DR. Müller.

al responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001