Corporate social responsibility: a trend and a movement, but of what and for what?

Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson
This paper is accepted for publication in Corporate Governance Journal.
Abstract
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a global trend involving corporations,
states, international organizations and civil society organizations. But a movement of what
and for whom? This article portrays the CSR trend in three ways: (1) as a regulatory
framework that places new demands on corporations, (2) as a mobilization of corporate actors
to assist the development aid of states and (3) as a management trend. Each of these portraits
suggests certain actors, relations, driving forces and interests as being central. My examples
show that no one of these views seems to be more accurate than the others: rather the
movement comprises a collection of diverse interests, actors, origins and trajectories. These
multiple identities may partially describe the trends success, but could equally well describe
its contestation, fragility and fluidity.
Key Words: trend, corporate social responsibility (CSR), UN Global Compact, management,
state, regulations
Author bio: Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson is professor of Management at Uppsala University.
She has published books and articles on the global circulation of management models and
standards, organizational changes in public sector, transnational regulations, and the
organizing of large projects. She co-edited, with Lars Engwall, The expansion of management
knowledge: Carriers, flows and sources (Stanford University Press, 2002). She is presently
conducting research on emergent transnational regulations in the fields of higher education,
corporate social responsibility and health care.
CSR: a trend of a multitude of issues, actors and relations
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a global trend incorporating business
corporations, states, international organizations and civil society organizations. As is usually
the case with movements and trends, we find a broader group of actors jumping on the
bandwagon with their own contributions. Management consultants and the media, for
example, have been visible in their treatment of CSR issues and have expanded both the
audience and the group of active participants.
One might ask why any of these groups of actors have involved themselves in the
movement and what impact their participation has on its development. One salient discussion
concerns why and how business corporations should engage in this trend. The focus on
business corporations is obvious: the label of CSR points directly to this group as the one
around which the entire endeavour is focused. Yet, corporate social responsibility is truly a
cross-sectional phenomenon. One can argue that it has evolved as part of transformed
boundaries and relations across societal sectors business, state and civil society and that

the trend may have an impact on boundaries and relations across these sectors. Alas, just as
we should ask why business corporations do (and dont, and maybe why they should or
should not) bother about corporate social responsibility and how their involvement in these
issues may affect their operations, we can also ask why states and numerous and varied
organizations engage themselves in corporate social responsibility.
Another important discussion concerns the extent to which the regulations, norms and
definitions of what is good corporate social responsibility should be developed, controlled and
monitored and by what party: primarily by corporate actors, by the state or by civil society
organizations? An extensive regulatory framework predominately voluntary, soft and selfregulatory has developed around CSR. However, it is supported and partly developed within
intergovernmental organizations such as the UN, and it is backed by other means of
governance such as learning networks, policy dialogues and the formation of large crosssectional alliances. Moreover, the voluntary codes are based on human rights and workers
rights conventions that have been agreed upon in intergovernmental settings. Debates around
these governance measures and around the types of relations should develop among the many
organizations involved are permeated by concerns about who should control the development
and who should be the leading actors.
It must be stressed that it is far from clear what CSR stands for, what the trend really is,
where it comes from, where it is heading and who the leading actors are. If we view it as a
social movement, we must ask: A movement of what and for whom? In this paper I portray
the CSR trend in three ways: (1) as a regulatory framework that places new demands on
corporations, (2) as a mobilization of corporate actors to assist state development aid and (3)
as a management trend. Each one of these portraits suggests the centrality of certain actors,
relations, driving forces and interests. My examples show that no one of these views seems
more accurate than the others; instead the movement comprises a bundle of diverse interests,
actors, origins and trajectories. These multiple identities of the trend may partly describe its
success as well as its contestation, fragility and fluidity. Hopefully, the discussion can lead us
to revisit the CSR trend in all its complexity and thus help us to draw complementary
conclusions regarding its development and potential impact. Moreover, the discussion may
help us reflect on the formation of trends and how certain models come to flow rapidly and
extensively around the globe, following and adding to institutional change especially to
changes in the roles, relations and boundaries between and among states, business
corporations and civil society organizations.

CSR as a regulatory framework

The social responsibility of corporations has been subjected to increased debate, activities,
scrutiny, media coverage and academic research (e.g. Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky et
al., 2003; Zadek, 2001), to the extent that we can define this trend as being virtually global in
scope. It is relatively easy to establish the success of this movement, insofar as we find it
increasingly under discussion. Many corporations now have specific programs and
subsections on their websites dealing with corporate social responsibility. Studies tracing the
development of CSR have shown that its media coverage has expanded dramatically during
the 1990s (Buhr and Grafstrm, 2004). We cannot establish the 1990s as the beginning of this
trend, however, because corporate social responsibility was discussed in earlier decades,
following previous recessions and previous debates about the societal role of corporations.
The recent trend, however, is often described as beginning with the protest movements in
Seattle, with the publishing of Naomi Kleins (2000) book, No Logo, and with corporate
scandals related, for example, to environmental catastrophes and the use of child labour. In
the wake of anti-globalization movements and more specific critiques of specific corporations
or industries, and at a time when the market strength of corporations is derived largely from
brand image, there has been a need for companies to demonstrate an awareness of social,
human and environmental issues. Viewed in this way, the CSR trend is driven by a criticism
that corporations are exploiting the world. Following such claims, the responsibility and
scrutiny of corporate actions are being reconsidered. The dominant view of the dynamics of
corporate social responsibility is one of companies reacting to new stakeholder demands.
Debates have focused on the extent to which these demands should be posed in terms of
increased regulations and, if so, who should design and monitor such regulations. Another
debate concerns the relationship between social and ethical demands and other tasks of the
companies, such as making profit, and growing and maximizing share holder value.

Soft regulations and steering networks

In the past, internationally established regulations have been one important mechanism for
placing such demands on companies states and interstate organizations have, for example,
issued guidelines and regulations for companies. The most widely diffused of such guiding
principles are the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. Within the United Nations
(UN), previous attempts have been made to regulate and monitor the social responsibility of
corporations. In the 1970s, the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC), among
others, began drafting international codes of conduct to regulate and monitor the activities of
3

transnational companies (TNCs), with the aim of advising developing countries on ways to
deal with them. Again, these regulations were channeled through states. However, such
previous initiatives have met with resistance and opposition (Utting, 2001). In the 1980s and
1990s, UN policy towards TNCs changed course. Instead of seeking to act with states to
regulate and monitor transnational corporations, the UN designed new agreements that spoke
directly to the corporations. These agreements were premised on the voluntary collaboration
of transnational corporations in developing softer forms of self-regulation and selfmonitoring. The framework appears to be focused on and largely controlled by corporations.
International organizations are still important actors in this context, but they are seeking a
dialogue with corporations rather than seeking to control the social responsibility of
corporations via states. The international organizations are not regulators of corporate social
responsibility; rather they are best described as brokers between regulatory and self-regulatory
initiatives.
The demand for socially responsible operations and the monitoring of these
operations has increasingly been channeled through organizations other than states, and the
emphasis favours a high proportion of self-regulation. Consequently, we have seen the
emergence of soft law (Mrth, 2004) or what Knill and Lehmkuhl (2002) have called
regulated self-regulation and Moran (2002) has termed subtle or non-formal regulations.
I prefer the terms soft law or soft regulations, because they are not always informal. The
soft regulations often include formal reporting and co-ordinating procedures and, from a coordination or administrative point of view; the regulations are often far from subtle. Whatever
its name, soft law leaves those who are being regulated with plenty of leeway to edit the rules
by displaying their compliance with a portion of the rules or to interpret the rules to fit their
own situation and expectations. Moreover, actors who are subject to regulation often report
that they are complying with the regulations. In doing so, they can choose to emphasize
aspects of their practice that are in line with the regulations, so as not to report on aspects that
deviate from the regulations.They can in other words edit their reports on practice so that it
fits with regulations. Instead of having sanctions applied to them, companies found not to be
following regulatory principles or not to be engaged in appropriate practices are to be blamed
and shamed. This is an order for which no one person or organization has clear authority over
another, where each unit is seen as being at least partly sovereign (which is the case in the
modern world of organizations, Meyer et al., 1997). It is a matter of co-regulation rather than
self regulation. Regulatory and governance modes as well as principles (or rather the
implications and demands that follow from adherence to the general principles) are subject to
4

ongoing dialogues among the participants.

The regulations evolve incrementally in a dialogue between the regulator and the
regulatee, and it is unclear who is regulating whom. Soft regulations tend to transcend the
regulation-deregulation divide. What is often termed de-regulation definitely involves a new
type of regulation, a line of thinking that has been pursued with the concept of responsive
regulation (Ayres and Braithwaite, 1992; see also Moran, 2002). With this concept, the
dialogue between the regulator and the regulated has been emphasized. In such dialogues,
common norms and understandings are developed and possibilities for voluntary compliance
are introduced. So the social responsibility measures and regulations evolve in dialogues
between corporations and their stakeholders.

The UN Global Compact as a soft regulatory framework

The UN Global Compact is at the centre of this evolving soft regulatory framework: it is
voluntary, has no binding legal sanctions applied to those who fail to comply, and is
formulated in general terms so it provides considerable leeway for those interpreting the
regulations to translate them into practice in a way that fits their circumstances and
expectations. The initiative is built on a menu of written principles based on international
declarations and agreements for members of the Compact to follow. However, the Compact is
not in itself a legal framework. Instead of issuing clear sanctions for organizations that do not
comply with the principles, the initiative depends upon commitment, credibility and visibility
for compliance. The Global Compact gains its credibility from the global reach and moral
authority of the UN and from the inclusion of additional actors creating a community around
the issued principles. It also gains credibility through its linkages to other regulatory systems.
The soft regulations, in other words, are nested in broader regulatory constellations
(Jacobsson and Sahlin-Andersson, 2002), adding to the fact that it remains unclear how
binding these regulations are and to what extent they can be expected to lead to compliance or
to remain soft. The UN Global Compact has developed through processes of responsive
regulation. In the summer of 2004, the addition of a tenth principle resulted from extensive
consultative processes among Compact members.
In addition, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the formation of what is termed
learning networks and policy dialogues. A number of meetings is arranged regularly, in
which business leaders, UN agencies, labor associations, governmental representatives, nongovernmental organizations, academics, and other groups are brought together to discuss and
share their experiences and concerns about specific issues. The Global Compact further
5

encourages the creation of local structures and networks at the country and regional level.
Participants from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have formed the Global Compact
Nordic Network to discuss the implementation of the principles. Major efforts have been
extended in order to expand the network by recruiting and activating members and by forming
partnerships with other transnational organizations. These networks and dialogues aim, as
announced on the Global Compact website, at facilitating learning across actors and sectors.
Participating companies in the Global Compact are asked to provide examples of how they
work to comply with and actively spread the ten principles. The organizers present the Global
Compact as a learning network and one ambition behind the reports is to provide examples of
best practices for others to follow. Lately, self-reporting has been de-emphasized in favor of
academic writings and standardized reporting criteria. Cases of best practice are written by
academic scholars and posted on the Global Compact website. Reference to science and
academics serve as a legitimizing device and a means of balancing dependence that emerges
in the networks with values of independence that are associated with science and auditing.
It seems that there is a vision to form a community among the participants in which
each individual actor strives to appear appropriate in relation to other members of the network
and to their stakeholders at large, a stance that should drive them to act according to the
principles articulated. The mechanism for encouraging people to adhere to the norms is,
therefore, to include them in the group, to persuade them that it is critical to have a good name
within the group, and to reach a high level of legitimacy for the effort as a whole in fact, a
degree of legitimacy that signals to wider audiences that group members are, by definition,
socially responsible. Inclusion is both the end and the means of the Compact as emphasized
by the very name of this initiative. A logic of appropriateness (March, 1981) is used as a
governance strategy: the Compact emphasizes the importance for individual actors to appear
appropriate and it is aimed at making visible the norms of appropriateness and compliance or
the lack thereof. The development resembles that of a social movement, as it is dependent
upon the mobilization of actors. In order for such a network to function effectively, the active
participation of members is crucial. In contrast to this ideal setup of the Compact, the websites
bear witness to a somewhat more relaxed and less active participation by the companies. The
active organizing of conferences and networks can be seen as a means for initiators to
mobilize members in order to form a more active movement.
There are other ways in which the Global Compact reminds us of a social movement
or, to use Morans (2002) term, a mode of steering network. As its representatives repeatedly
emphasize, The Global Compact office neither regulates nor monitors a companys
6

submissions and initiatives (Kell, 2003: 38). Constellations of mobilizing, policy making,
reporting and monitoring bodies are formed into a network. This entire network, rather than
individual rules and rule makers form a regulatory framework.
The goal is to hold the network of actors together by common principles, procedures
and norms. Those in conflict or those unlikely to adhere to the rules are not punished within
the system. Thus the soft regulation presumes the existence of common norms and a will
among those joining the network to judge each other relative to these established rules and
procedures. Although common interests may not be present at the outset, the hope is that
those included in the network come to share common norms. The inclusion mechanism is
built on the vision that the larger and more extensive this network, the more important it will
be for corporations, which are dependent on their stakeholders, to join the network and to
show others that they comply with its rules. Instead of receiving formal sanctions, those not
following principles are merely blamed and shamed.
The extended network that is built around the Global Compact includes a large
number of initiatives concerned with corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility and
related issues. It comprises a wide set of diverse organizations, including such
intergovernmental organizations as the World Bank and the OECD, business associations
(e.g. International Chamber of Commerce and World Business Council for Sustainable
Development), labor organizations (e.g. The International Confederation of Free Trade
Unions), academic institutions, and civil society organizations (e.g. Amnesty International). .
Furthermore, the initiatives leave discipline in the hands of independent observers
academics, NGOs, and independent media that watch and scrutinize the actions taken and
point the finger of blame at those who step out of line. By encouraging civil society
organizations to scrutinize the social responsibility of business corporations, the Global
Compact forms a governance framework without necessarily applying a legal framework. In
the guidelines for members, posted on the Global Compact website, Corpwatch and other civil
society organizations known to more critically scrutinize corporations and globalization are
referred to as active scrutinizers of the operations of the Global Compact and its members a
sign of the active scrutiny that is being performed. By incorporating these more critical actors,
the initiative is further legitimized. These organizations are expected to play an important role
as critical monitors and scrutinizers of corporate actors and of corporations compliance with
the established principles.
An alternative and a complement to the activities of independent observers and an
integral part of the regulatory and governance framework is the establishment of monitoring
7

systems, characterized by independence. Such a systematic accounting of these aspects of

business, the Global Report Initiative (GRI), is under development. GRI describes itself on its
website as a multi-stakeholder process and independent institution whose mission is to
develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. This multistakeholder process is hosted by a permanent, independent organization which has had global
headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands since 1997. The GRI seeks to develop a reporting
system comparable to the international accounting standards board and to achieve a level of
reporting of economic, environmental and social sustainability that would be as routine as
financial reporting. A framework agreement between the Global Compact and the GRI was
established in March 2003, wherein the Global Compact agreed to encourage companies to
use GRI guidelines and reporting indicators that matched existing Global Compact principles.
Extended networks of reporting, standardizing, rule setting and the monitoring of
organizations have been connected to the Global Compact. For example, the GRI and the
Global Compact have announced their links with social and environmental standards SA 8000
and ISO 14000. The regulatory and governance modes and domains develop incrementally
with the enrollment of new actors; with the interplay among actors; and with the interplay
among related regulatory, governing and criticizing efforts. Regulations and governance are
characterized by reciprocity and co-regulation.

CSR as a regulatory framework: impacts on organizations and cross sector relations

I have described the CSR trend as evolving from the protests and concerns of civil society
organizations. Corporations have launched programs, applied standards and taken an active
part in developing such standards in response to new demands and new forms of monitoring.
It is a regulatory framework. Corporations appear both as main targets and as main driving
actors of the trend. Other organizations are mobilized more or less as actors in the
environment of the corporations. States and intergovernmental organizations act as channels
to place demands on corporations, demands which have also been expressed by civil society
organizations. The organized efforts of states and international organizations have put
legitimacy and strength behind these demands by packaging them in the form of globally
applicable standards and reporting criteria, by basing them on the UN framework, and by
associating them with established norms and agreements. In this way the movement builds on
and can be expected to further emphasize a relationship between and among states,
international organizations and corporations, whereby states are expected to form and uphold
the institutional frameworks within which corporations act. The reason for forming this
8

regulatory framework to be soft rather than hard is based on what the framework seems to be
able to accomplish harder and more state-centered regulations may not have been accepted
by those who are to be regulated (corporations) and by their stakeholders. Hence, the
emphasis on soft regulations appears as an expression of the global power and strength of
multinational corporations. Because business corporations have such strength in the world,
their compliance with fundamental human, worker and environmental rights is essential for
furthering positive developments in the world of corporate social responsibility. Debates
center on how such compliance should be accomplished, what the criteria are for reaching
compliance and who should monitor and sanction those not complying.

CSR as a mobilization of corporate actors to assist states development aid

If corporate social responsibility is increasingly subject to self regulation among corporations,
why have states become so active in this area? At the website of the Swedish Partnership for
Global Responsibility one can read the following quote:

The debate on corporate social responsibility is becoming increasingly

intensive. It is gratifying that Swedish industry has played an active role in
the efforts to realise a good working environment and good working
conditions. The Globalt Ansvar initiative is a joint effort to persuade
Swedish companies to become ambassadors for human rights, acceptable
economic and social conditions and a good environment.
(www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2657/a/14557).

The Swedish partnership for Global Responsibility was initiated in March 2002 by the
Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for International
Development Co-operation, Asylum Policy and Migration. Using an open letter, these
ministers invited the Swedish corporate community to take part in the initiative which
followed in the footsteps of, and built upon, the UN-led Global Compact and the OECD
guidelines for multinational companies. States and international organizations have been
active in seeking to enrol corporations in various corporate social responsibility initiatives.
The Swedish Globalt ansvar is, in part, set up along lines similar to that of the Global
Compact; for example, it seeks to enrol members who are to comply with the established
principles of the Global Compact and the OECD. It also acts as a missionary for other
multilateral initiatives. Moreover, Globalt Ansvar arranges seminars, publishes reports and
9

works as a forum for spreading the awareness of corporate social responsibility among
corporations and other organizations around Sweden. Although seminars and other activities
have attracted a great deal of attention, the number of members remains low. In November
2004 only 15 companies were listed as members on the website of Globalt Ansvar.
The presentation and the launch of the Swedish program resemble that used to launch
the UN Global Compact. The Global Compact initiative was first announced by UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 1999. The UNs
choice of a place for announcing what it described as a highly strategic project shows that the
UN is increasingly turning its attention and hope toward business corporations. With the
Global Compact initiative, leaders from the worlds of business, labor and civil society are
urged to unite in an effort to support and spread universal values and responsible business
operations, terms emphasized on the Global Compact website. This website further
encourages business leaders to engage in this effort because the principles of the Global
Compact aim to help strengthen the social pillars within which any market, including the
global market, must be embedded if it is to survive and thrive.
In the previous section, I have argued that the CSR trend has been understood and
analyzed primarily as a way to place new demands on corporations and that corporations have
become subject to extensive scrutiny. Much of the present debate is concerned with how
corporations can handle and comply with such demands. However, one can read the above
quotes as expressions of another dominant driver for this trend. As much as corporate social
responsibility is an expression of extensive scrutinizing efforts relative to corporations, the
trend is one in which corporations are seen as complementing, sometimes replacing states as
the primary structurers and shapers of the world. When engaging in corporate social
responsibility, states, civil society groups and international organizations seek support from
corporate actors in pursuing and diffusing internationally agreed-upon norms concerning
human rights, workers rights and environmental awareness. This, in turn, is an expression of
a more active role played by corporations in shaping and transforming the current world
order. Seen in this way, the CSR trend is far from a criticism of corporations. Rather, it builds
on the view of corporations as strong, legitimate and efficient, providing the weaker states
with to diffuse values and principles around the world or, put differently, corporations are
co-opted by states in an effort to build a global welfare state.

10

A striving for more efficient and wide reaching development aid

Several multinational businesses have a turnover that exceeds the GNP of many nation states.
Such corporations are asked to form partnerships with other business corporations, NGOs and
developing countries, and by doing so, help to diffuse the norms that have been formulated in
the Global Compact initiative. Corporations are further called upon to become active partners
with states and civil society organizations in fighting poverty and certain diseases, and in
shaping civil society around the world. The corporate social responsibility trend, in other
words, builds on the view that corporations, because of their strength and size, play a
profound role in shaping globalization, and the trend reinforces this allocation of power and
influence. Also, these corporations actually do have extended networks that already have
served purposes of channeling values around the world. So, corporate networks may have the
potential to be more effective at distributing values and norms than would states and interstate
set ups. And, the mobilizing of corporate actors in development aid builds on the idea that
such multi-sector arrangements will be more efficient in achieving desired results.
To this point, I have described this request and initiative as being driven by
governmental organizations. But similar activities, directed more towards soliciting the active
participation of corporations in development aid efforts than towards securing corporate
compliance with general norms and rules, is also found among corporate social activities. For
example the participation of business corporations in global developmental projects takes this
form. One specific case in point concerns the Global Alliance for Vaccine and Immunization
(GAVI), whereby the vaccine industry is mobilized to contribute to an extention of the supply
of vaccine to children in the worlds poorest countries (Buhr, 2004). The Swedish
multinational Ericson serves as another example through its provision of extensive
telecommunication equipment to restore communications infrastructure in the former
Yugoslavian countries after the wars.
Such proactive initiatives are also found among corporations reacting to criticisms
leveled at them for breaking away from socially responsible codes. One example concerns the
former US-Swedish company, Pharmacia. In a small study, including a few interviews and
an analysis of their press releases and other documents, we traced the background and early
development of their engagement in a corporate social responsibility initiative. The interviews
were held in 2001-2002 when the company was considering various ways of working with
CSR issues. The Information Director for the Swedish branch of the company and the Vice
President with responsibility for strategic issues (also a Swede, and one who formerly held the
primary responsibility for the Swedish part of Pharmacia) were involved in and, in fact,
11

actually drove this initiative. To them, the precipitating factor was an incident in which the
pharmaceutical industry sued the South African government for breaking with the patent laws
by seeking to produce and to purchase generic AIDS medications. This industry initiative was
severely criticized in the media and because Pharmacia was one of the leading Swedish
pharmaceutical companies at the time, it was included in the Swedish media criticism, despite
the fact that it had no production facility and no patents related to AIDS.
As a reaction to the situation, Pharmacia took proactive action. The Swedish
Information Director and the Vice-President actively sought to persuade the other leaders of
Pharmacia that the company had to make some compensatory moves in order to restore the
firms reputation as a responsible company. The American branch of the company had a
tradition of charity and the Swedes argued that some charitable activities directed to the
developing world were needed. After considering various options, Pharmacia initiated a
partnership with NGOs in Africa which were active in performing eye surgery on a voluntary
basis.
Because Pharmacia merged with Pfizer less than a year later, we ended our little study.
It does, however, provide an illustration of the role that corporations can take in assisting
states and NGOs in development aid projects as a compensatory measure for being scrutinized
and criticized for lack of social responsibility. And it does provide an illustration of what our
interlocutors at Pharmacia described as an encounter between European and American views
on how to actively pursue social responsibility. The view on social responsibility that was
emerging in Europe at the time was largely oriented towards the developing world, and
individual European firms were taking measures in response to critiques leveled against
whole industries or against business corporations in general. In effect these individual firms
came to be seen as and to react as representatives of the larger business groupings. In contrast,
the US view that our interlocutors met in their intracorporate discussions was one that saw the
role of corporations in society as being more local and, on the dimensions of reputation and
scrutinizing, more limited. However, there was an American tradition of providing charity for
those in need, and the Europeans now saw the necessity and the opportunity to lift this
American orientation to a global level, combining the American and European views on
corporate social responsibility.

CSR as development aid: impacts on organizations and cross-sector relations

In choosing to view the CSR trend as one of states and international organizations turning to
corporations for support and help rather than viewing it as a means of regulating and
12

controlling corporations, we need to revisit questions about why various actors around the
world engage in corporate social responsibility projects. Why do states and international
organizations launch CSR initiatives and why do they turn to corporations for collaboration?
Why do corporations sign the Global Compact and similar agreements? And do these
engagements actually reallocate or reconfirm boundaries and relationships across sectors in
society? These questions cannot all be answered here, but hopefully this discussion
demonstrates the importance of asking such questions.
In Sweden, most of the discussion around corporate social responsibility focuses on the
role of corporations globally rather than the role of corporations in Swedish society. The
emphasis on human rights is one that is discussed primarily in relation to the developing
world. And it is in relation to developments in the developing world that many corporations
have started to work with CSR issues. The view that corporate social responsibility is related
primarily to the developing world is strengthened as one examines what corporations
announce on their websites under the heading of CSR. Under these headings, corporate social
responsibility is associated with development aid. Because the giant multinational corporate
actors are so powerful, states and intergovernmental organizations turn to them for assistance.
This, in other words, is a movement that builds on and stresses the complementarities of
states, businesses and civil society. However, within this framework there are no forces to
limit the size and power of corporations and this trend may lead to a shifting of boundaries
among states, society and corporations. Just as the trend builds on the strength and power of
corporations, it may reinforce this power and add to a transfer of responsibilities and
resources from states and civil society to corporations.

CSR as a management trend

Demands for companies to be aware of and active in social rights, humans rights and
environmental issues have also taken root among consultants, standardizing organizations,
financial rating bodies and the media, all of which now dedicate extensive attention and
resources to such matters. And academic texts have proliferated in this area. As Windells
(2004) study shows, some of the consultants in the area are ideologically motivated and
clearly focused on making the world a better place. However, those consultants, standardizing
organizations, researchers, media and other groups that have previously been engaged in the
development and diffusion of management concepts have also turned their interest to
corporate social responsibility. Tracking the flows, translations and developments of
13

corporate social responsibility clearly demonstrates similarities with previous management

trends (cf Sahlin-Andesson and Engwall, 2002; Czarniawska and Sevn, 1996; Christensen
and Laegreid, 2000) to the extent, I believe that CSR can be portrayed as yet another
management trend. Let me briefly clarify what I mean by this expression and illustrate what
implications I believe it has for viewing the driving forces and impacts of such a trend.
The trends and popularity of management models have been explained by the fact that
they are adopted by organizations as a means of appearing legitimate, modern and attractive
for potential employees, collaborators, customers and others. Certain management models
become fashionable and eventually some evolve and become the expected institutionalized
elements of a proper and modern organization (Czarniawska and Sevn, 1996; Brunsson and
Sahlin-Andersson, 2000). The trends appear to be driven less by the instrumental function of
individual models and concepts than by the belief that it is important, fashionable, and part of
the identity of being a modern organization to adopt the particular models and concepts. This
line of thinking appear to explain the success achieved by models such as Total Quality
Management (e.g. Abrahamson, 1991; Westphal et Al. 1997) and the penchant for
organizations to adopt new management models more generally (e.g. Meyer and Rowan,
1977; Czarniawska and Sevn, 1996).
When studying the expansion and flow of management techniques and models, we have
emphasized that this could not be understood primarily as a demand-driven process, but must
be seen as supply driven (Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall, 2002). When organizations that can
potentially serve as providers or carriers of certain management models expand and compete,
they develop new and extended concepts and services. As we followed the flow and forms of
management knowledge, we also found that the flow of management knowledge gave impetus
to new and expanded carriers and to users of such knowledge and interaction among them. In
this way, self-sustaining processes for the expansion of management knowledge were formed
with an expanded scope of knowledge and an expanded scale of carriers. Simply put,
management knowledge expands as carriers expand, and carriers expand as the knowledge
field expands. This is largely so because the nature of management knowledge remains
unclear. Management consultants offer many kinds of models, techniques and services that
are aimed at improving the management of corporations. These include, for example, how
individual leaders are recruited, trained and developed, how operations are co-ordinated, how
results are measured, and how environmental relations are managed. We have described
management knowledge as creolized; it is formed from many different sources and on the
translation and combination of these diverse kinds of knowledge. Thus, management
14

knowledge, in all its diversity, could simply be defined as the knowledge that management
carriers offer to organizations. Those who have become carriers of management knowledge
search for and develop new models to incorporate in their portfolios of models, as ways to
make business, to attract attention or simply to survive. And recently we have seen that
management consultants, management researchers and management organizations have
incorporated CSR in their portfolio of models.
In order for it to become attractive for organizations to adopt the management ideas,
these ideas are being generalized and theorized and associated with powerful interests and
origins (e.g. Strang and Meyer,1993; Rvik, 2002; Greenwood et al., 2002; Sahlin-Andersson,
1996, 2001). They are packaged into models, labelled and structured as simple technologies
(in the form of checklists, keywords and prescribed procedures, for example) so that they
appear possible to implement. And they are usually labelled in such a way that they are
recognizable and presentable as specific models. Thus, in this narrative form CSR resembles
previous management trends.

CSR: a supply-driven management trend

The large supply by the many organizations that shape management knowledge, and the way
in which the models are packaged partly explain the flow of CSR. Management trends have
also proven to be self-sustainable. Once the models begin to flow, they become rational myths
that are incorporated in widely spread assumptions about what a modern organizations should
be (Tolbert and Zucker, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Then it becomes important for
organizations that are expected to or want to appear to be modern to incorporate such models
into their operations, or at least into their presentations. CSR has appeared not only as a
recurrent ingredient in todays management models, but has been emphasized in the many
scrutinizing activities of organizations that are performed by media, professional
organizations, experts of various kinds (for example, rating agencies), and by potential
collaborators, competitors and customers).
McIntosh et al. (2003: 18ff) point to the large number of voluntary agreements,
directives, conventions and declarations in the nature of a soft law that is presently evolving
around the issue of corporate social responsibility. They identify a group of eight main
initiatives in the area: OECD guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, ILO Conventions on
Workplace Practice, UN Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), ISO standards,
including ISO 14001S, AccountAbility 1000S (AA1000S) and Social Accountability 8000

15

(SA8000). These voluntary agreements that complement and build upon each other yet
compete with each other are only a small portion of all activities in the area and a fraction of
the models, agendas, standards and services offered. Conferences are held, journals
established and professional organizations founded. The ISO is in the process of producing a
new standard in this field and the Swedish Standardizing organization (SIS) is considering
whether it too should develop a standard. The many management models offered and the
numerous reporting systems associated with the standards certainly form a market for
consultants, standardizing organizations and others to offer their services. Agreements among
professional organizations are also instituted: In January 2004, for example, the European
Foundation for Management Development (efmd, the organization behind the leading
European accreditation system for management education) and the Global compact formed a
partnership aimed at developing learning programs for business leaders and business
education programs.

CSR as a mode of presentation: impacts on organizations and cross-sector relationships

My intent is to show that the corporate social responsibility trend displays similar patterns to
previous management trends. Furthermore, CSR has been implemented by many of these
adopters and those active in distributing management models now profess, package and
translate CSR in similar ways to previous models. So, not only does CSR resemble previous
management trends, it is a management trend, largely driven by organizational interests
among the many and expanding carriers of management knowledge.
When viewed in this way, the many organizations that at least seem to try to present
themselves as others (Meyer, 1994), working in the environment of corporations, are
driving this trend. Seeking legitimacy, those corporations adopt the models on offer, not so
much based on the content and meaning of such models, but because the models have become
part of the rationalized myth about what should comprise the expected repertoire of modern
corporations. Seen in this persepctive, this trend has little to do with reconsidered boundaries
and responsibilities of states, corporations and civil society. Rather it is a package of ideas
that corporations are expected to adopt. The motivation for adoption has more to do with how
corporations present themselves, in general, than with how their responsibilities and
boundaries are set.

16

A bundle of three trends: commonalities and tensions

I have portrayed CSR in three ways: (1) as a regulatory framework that places new demands
on corporations, (2) as a mobilization of corporate actors to assist the development aid of
states and (3) as a management trend. Each of these trends points to certain actors, interests
and relationships as being their central drivers. The portrait of the trend depends on how we
trace it. A simple way of tracing the development is to follow the label CSR. At least with
this definition it is easy to establish that CSR has emerged as a more or less global trend.
There is an abundance of publications, media coverage, corporate website presentations,
consultancy offers, conferences and agendas of international organizations that mention CSR.
As is common for trends, such labels may cover a variety of meanings. At the same time, a
the common label serves as a way of packaging the various meanings and interests thereby
supporting each other and adding to the flow of the model at hand.
Attempting to establish that a trend or a movement has emerged by tracing the
development and circulation of a certain label does not say much about what really is at stake.
A more nuanced and elaborated framework for tracing a trend can be based on Rose and
Millers (1992) conceptual framework on programmes and technologies of government. Rose
and Miller emphasize that political rationalities characterize various governance initiatives
and form a basis for the execution of power. However, they also stress that the governance
initiatives should be analyzed in terms of their governmental technologies, the complex and
mundane calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents and procedures through which
authorities seek to pursue and embody governmental ambitions. This distinction is further
clarified by Power (1998), who distinguishes between programmes and technologies in his
analysis of the proliferation of audits and the relationship of this trend to the more general
emergence of new public management.
I argue that the analytical model developed by Rose and Miller can be combined with a
conceptual framework developed by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998). The latter authors point
to the importance of norm entrepreneurs in fostering institutional change. Norms are defined
as (single) standards of appropriate behaviour (a different theoretical tradition and different
concepts, but I see clear parallels with Rose and Millers programmes). They distinguish
norms from institutions, defining institutions as collections of practices and rules. When using
this terminology, one can define the whole package of CSR as the emergent institution and
the individual interests and norms that I identified in terms of three different but bundled
trends and norms. Finnemore and Sikkink further point to the importance of the
organizational platforms and the technologies through which norms are being promoted.
17

Based on these distinctions, I suggest that it is useful to treat label, technology and
programme as three separate analytical categories of the emergent trend, and it remains an
open question whether they are tightly or loosely coupled categories. The translation or
editing that takes place as ideas circulate is partly one in which these aspects or concept or
ideas are remixed (Sahlin-Andersson, 2001). A label may remain unchanged as a model
diffuses, but it be associated with or supported by different technologies and programmes as
the model evolves.
Now, if we use this framework to analyze the emergent CSR trend as three bundled
trends, as suggested above, we find both complementarities and tensions among these three.
These forces are found when we seek answers to the questions:
1. What is driving this trend; what actors are central and for what target audience?
2. What is the impact of the trend on corporate operations and on boundaries and
relationships across societal sectors (among business corporations, states and civil
society organizations)?

First, the CSR label knits the many and varied demands, activities and models, and
categorizes them in terms of a common trend. In such a way, the many different interests,
technologies, demands and activities are driving, reinforcing and supporting each other, so
that CSR expands across sectors and across countries. And with the common label and many
intertwined mundane calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents and procedures that
have been developed in the name of CSR, cross-sectional activities are further emphasized
and possibly expanded.
I have identified different actors and interests that are driving the trend. In terms of the
conceptual framework presented above these can be defined as different norm entrepreneurs
and different programmes behind the three trends. One, the regulatory framework, was
primarily driven by the new demands being placed on corporations. These demands originated
from civil society organizations but have been channelled by states (including
intergovernmental organizations); international organizations; consultants; and various
stakeholders such as employment organizations, rating bodies and investors. The second
trend, the entrance of corporate actors into the area of development aid, was driven by state
organizations in their search for assistance, but it was also supported and channelled by the
many international organizations, media, consultants and other corporations. And
corporations themselves have initiated operations in accordance with these norms as a
reaction to new demands for social responsibility. Consultants and other carriers of
18

management knowledge were promoting the CSR as a management trend. For these
organizations, CSR formed a means of strengthening their competition for resources, attention
and legitimacy.
Although, the various actors pursuing CSR do so from diverse interests and norms, they
employ a common organizational platform and common technologies. For all groups, learning
networks, conferences, and the many encounters across societal sectors provide arenas where
interests can be pursued and responses can be conveyed. Hence, in many ways, the diverse
interests, norms and expectations support and complement each other, and together they form
and drive the movement.
However, there were also differences in the manner in which various actors pursued
CSR. One difference concerned the way in which corporate social responsibility related to
other activities, operations and demands on the corporations. The demands on corporations to
act and to develop in socially responsible ways and the regulating and scrutinizing efforts that
follow from these demands are meant to concern the entire corporation wherever in the
world it operates. On the other hand, when corporate social responsibility is pursued as a
mobilization of corporations in assisting states in development aid, it may not concern the
whole corporation; rather it seems to be organized and pursued in the form of specific
projects, often aimed at very distant places and sectors. And third, as a management trend,
corporate social responsibility seems to be connected primarily with presentations and
legitimacy building in corporations, and we should expect, based on previous research, a great
deal of de-coupling to occur.
When it comes to cross-sector boundaries and relationships among states, business
corporations and civil society organizations, the three trends also seem to entail differences.
The first trend, the placing of new demands on corporations, seems to be built on and to
reinforce a relatively traditional division of responsibility across societal sectors whereby
states provide the rules of the game and corporations act according to these rules. States and
international organizations do act as rule setters and as mediators of the broader demands
placed on corporations leading to conflicts and tensions over who should set the rules and
who should monitor them. But such conflicts are not unique to the CSR field. The second
trend, the entrance of large corporations into the delivery of aid to developing countries,
seems to be driving a somewhat more blurring of boundaries, in which corporations are not
only expected to follow rules and to respond to expectations and demands set by others, but
are actually expected to supplement and add to state and inter-governmental organizations
where their reach and strength seems to be too limited. In the third, the management trend, we
19

find a more active role being played by the carriers of concepts, models, expectations and
presentations than is usually assumed to be the case. Again, this is not unique to the CSR
field; it has also been found to be the case in the development of management and
organizational trends more generally. This phenomenon, however, points to the importance of
developing further elaborated models of cross-sectoral relationships; the role of
intermediaries; and the interrelations among norms and norm entrepreneurs, organizational
platforms and governing technologies.

References
Abrahamson, E. (1991), Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of
innovations, Academy of Management Review. Vol. 16, pp. 586-612.
Ayres, I. and Braithwaite J. (1992), Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation
Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brunsson, N. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000), Constructing Organizations: The Example of
Public Sector Reform, Organization Studies, Vol. 21, no 4, pp. 721-746.
Buhr, H. (2004), Getting Walls to Fall? Firms in Public Private Partnerships. Paper presented
at the Scancor conference Corporate Social Responsibility in the Era of the Transforming
Welfare State. LaPietra, Italy in May 2004.
Buhr, H. and Grafstrm, M. (2004,) Corporate Social Responsibility Edited in the Business
Press - Package Solutions with Problems Included. Paper presented at the EGOS Colloquium
in Ljubljana, July 2004.
Christensen, T. and Laegreid P. (eds.) (2000), New Public Management: The Transformation
of Ideas and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Czarniawska, B. and Sevn, G. (eds.) (1996), Translating Organisational Change. Berlin:
DeGruyter.
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998), International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,
International Organizations, Vol 52, no 4, pp. 887917.
Greenwood, Royston, Roy Suddaby, and C. R Hinings, 2002, "Theorizing Change: The Role
of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields." Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 58-80.
Jacobsson, Bengt and Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson(2002), The dynamics of transnational
regulations: Constellations among states, international organizations and business
corporations Paper presented at the EGOS Colloquium in Barcelona, July 2002.
Kell, George (2003), The Global Compact: Origin, Operations, Progress, Challenges, The
Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (11), 35-49.

20

Klein, N. (2000), No Logo. London: Flamingo.

Knill, Christoph and Dirk Lehmkuhl (2002), Private Actors and the State:
Internationalization and Changing Patterns of Governance Governance, Vol.15, no1, pp. 41
63.
McIntosh, Malcolm, Ruth Thomas, Deborah Leipziger and Gill Coleman (2003), Living
Corporate Citizenship: Strategic Routes to Socially Responsible Business, Edinburgh:
Prentice Hall.
March, J.G. (1981) Decisions in organizations and theories of choice. In Perspectives of
organizational design and behavior. Edited by A. Van de Ven and W. F. Joyce. Wiley.
Margolis, Joshua D. and James P. Walsh (2003), Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking
Social Initiatives by Business, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 48, pp.268-305.
Meyer, John W. (1994), Rationalized Environments in W. Richard Scott & John W. Meyer
(eds), Institutional Environments and Organizations. Pp. 28-54, Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Meyer, John, John Boli, George Thomas, and Francisco Ramirez (1997), World Society and
the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 103, no.1 , pp. 144-181.
Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan, (1977) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as
Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 340-363.
Moran, M. (2002), Understanding the Regulatory State. British Journal of Political Science.
Vol.32, pp. 391 413.
Mrth, U. (2004) Soft Law in Governance and Regulation: an Interdisciplinary Analysis.
Edward Elgar.
Orlitzky, M., F.L. Schmidt and S. L. Rynes (2003), Corporate Social and Financial
Performance, Organization Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 403-441.
Power, Michael (1997) The Audit Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rose, N. and Miller, P. Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government, The
British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 173-205.
Rvik, K. (2002), The Secrets of The Winners: Management Ideas that Flow, in K. SahlinAndersson and L. Engwall (eds.). The Expansion of Management Knowledge: Carriers,
Flows and Sources. Pp. 113-144, Stanford University Press.
Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996) Imitating by Editing Success, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevn
(eds.) Translating Organisational Change, pp. 69 92. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Sahlin-Andersson, K., (2001) National, international and transnational constructions of New
Public Management, in T. Christensen and P. Laegreid (eds.) New Public Management: The
Transformation of Ideas and Practice. pp. 43-72. Ashgate: Aldershot.

21

Sahlin-Andersson, K. and L. Engwall (eds.) (2002), The Expansion of Management

Knowledge: Carriers, Flows and Sources. Stanford University Press.
Strang, D. and Meyer, J. W. (1993) Institutional conditions for diffusion, Theory and
Society, vol. 22, pp. 487-511.
Tolbert, P. S. and Zucker, L. (1983) Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure
of Organisations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935 Administrative Science
Quarterly, vol. 28, pp.22-39.
Utting, Peter (2002) Regulating business via multistakeholder initiatives: a preliminary
assessment. Paper prepared under the United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development (UNRISD).
Westphal, J.D., Gulati, R., Shortell, S.M. (1997) Customization or Conformity? An
Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 42, no. 2, pp. 366-394.
Windell, K. (2004) Corporate Responsibility in The Making Disguised Consultants
Furthering New Business Norms. Paper presented at the Scancor conference Corporate
Social Responsibility in the Era of the Transforming Welfare State. LaPietra, Italy in May
2004.
Zadek, S. (2001), The Civil Corporation: The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship.
London: Earthscan Publications.

22