Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization Author(s): Dirk Matten and Andrew Crane Source: The Academy

of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 166-179 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159101 . Accessed: 16/09/2013 04:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Academy o?Management Review 2005,Vol. 30,No. 1. 166-179.

NOTE

AN TOWARD CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP: EXTENDED THEORETICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION

DIRK MATTEN
University of London

ANDREW CRANE
University
We critically and examine the content

of Nottingham

of contemporary citi of corporate understandings the extant body of research with business dealing is to realize a theoretically of informed definition purpose society relations. Our main that is descriptively robust and conceptually distinct from ex corporate citizenship our extended in the literature. the exposes isting concepts perspective Specifically, zenship locate them within tion of a of "citizenship" of bundle as the administra and conceptualizes corporate citizenship individual civil, and rights?social, citizenship political? and protected granted by governments.

element

conventionally

THE EMERGENCE OF CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP

(CC) has emerged as a citizenship Corporate term in the management literature prominent This with the social role of business. dealing in of occurred the realm management initially

in in U.S. businesses practice. Having originated the 1980s (Altman & Vidaver-Cohen, 2000), the to enter the language term has since begun of in A landmark the global business community. on the joint statement this process has been Corporate Citizenship?The Leadership for CEOs and Boards" that was Challenge in Forum the World Economic signed during from thirty New York, in January 2002, by CEOs four of the world's corpo largest multinational rations "Global

Kingdom, Deakin Eichst?tt University consultants and many United and have ence

now a dedicated Journal of a and number of research Corporate Citizenship, centers have concerned with CC explicitly at in those Boston emerged, including College the United in the States, Warwick University 2001a). There is also in Australia, University in Germany. Likewise, business publications

the terminology of CC adopted to firms' social and environmental 1998; Roberts,

in refer

(see Miller,

2001). Finally, Wagner, and number of government units, consultancies, to CC, such think tanks specifically dedicated as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for Center for the Institute African Citizenship, Corporate Corporate Citizenship, and the London-based Company. Our aim The Copenhagen Corporate Center, Citizenship

policies Keeble, & Brown, 2002; there is also a growing

Com (MNCs). These included Coca-Cola Merck & Deutsche Bank, Diageo, Co., pany, and UBS McDonald's Philips, Corporation,

Forum, 2002). (World Economic of the term is not the proliferation However, is a to the corporate There confined sphere. work specifically body of academic toCC issues (see Andriof & Mclntosh,

growing dedicated

We

thank

former editor are also

Ed Conlon and

reviewers

for their comments versions

We argument. on earlier ments

grateful of the manuscript.

and the anonymous to refine our suggestions to leremy Moon for com

to do this, we will draw on the as it is used in its originat notion of citizenship science. The benefits of ing discipline?political considered interdisciplinary taking this more ization. In order approach are that it not only exposes the mis use in most of of terminology leading citizenship the the management literature but also provides

rent usage of CC to argue the case

is to examine in this paper the cur inmanagement literature and for a more robust conceptual

166

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2005

Matten

and

Crane

167

an extended for developing theoretical a more want to We show that conceptualization. us to of CC under precise understanding helps in the corporate stand significant changes role and poses serious questions about the nature of basis these changes. our conception Our

to various kinds of social, sibility to contribute or cultural recreational, educational, purposes. The strategic and processual of CSR aspects means have been further developed of the by of corporate social concept responsiveness (Clarkson, 1995;Wartick & Cochran, 1985), while on corporate the debate social performance (Swanson, 1995;Wood, 1991) has focused on the of CSR. Stakeholder theory, mean has addressed the question of which in society corporations should be respon & Preston, 1995; Freeman,

not?namely, icant redirection about

in the development of theory the social role of business. In so doing, we debate, as well as hope to stimulate conceptual re offer a more informed basis for empirical
search.

then, is to sharpen purpose, of what CC it is is, and what to invigorate and inform a signif

outcomes while,

groups sible to (Donaldson

CC AS A NEW CONCEPT IN BUSINESS

SOCIETYRELATIONS
toCarroll

To some extent, however, these concepts have a wider and more enthusiastic attained accep tance in the academic literature than in corpo

1984).

in the role of business has, most notably, been society. This lineage dominated social re by the notion of corporate CSR model sibilities

According of a lineage of work ture that conceptualizes

(1999), CC is an extension in the management litera

sponsibility (CSR). Carroll's (1979) widely cited

four types of respon conceptualizes for the corporation: (1) the economic to be profitable; (2) the legal re responsibility the ethical just, and to do what responsibility fair; and (4) the philanthropic

rate thinking and practice (see Beaver, 1999, and van Luijk, 2001). CC, meanwhile, has been intro into the CSR discourse duced in the last few years, mainly at the instigation of corporate ac tors. Table 1 sets out just a few of the many of corporations examples currently using CC that despite terminology. It is evident, however, the addition sur of the CC term to the debate

sponsibility to abide by the laws of society; (3)

is right, respon

definition of clear, specific, and widely accepted CC has yet to be developed in the management

the social role of business, its usage rounding has not been consistent nor, we would suggest, clear. that a Indeed, we contend particularly

TABLE 1
Commitments
Company ExxonMobil Corporate "We pledge worldwide. with all national Ford "Corporate and action in who we Nike we Citizenship Statement in all ethical and we operate the places standards, comply local and respect safe and http://www.ford.com.

to Corporate

Citizenship
Source http://www.exxonmobil.com

to be a good corporate citizen We will maintain the highest laws and regulations, applicable cultures. We are dedicated

to running

environmentally

responsible operations." an integral has become citizenship we take. We believe are at as a company, of our employees,

take care

part of every decision is demonstrated corporate citizenship our business how we conduct and how as well as in how we interact with in a

the world "Our vision world responsible sustainable

large." is to be an

where

innovative and citizen inspirational global our company participates. Every day we drive business that contribute to profitable and practices operate,

http://www.nike.com

Nokia Toyota

growth." is to be a good corporate we citizen wherever and contributing of society." member responsible a corporate "With the aim of becoming citizen respected "Our goal international philanthropic areas: major international

as a

http://www.nokia.com http://www.toyota.co.jp

by a wide is conducting society, Toyota range of activities cover the world. Its activities throughout the environment, culture and the arts, education, and local communities." exchange

five

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

Academy

of Management

Review

lanuary

literature. In the following sections we examine current usage of the term and, in so doing, de on CC. Of lineate three different perspectives views based these, two are largely conventional on CSR and its derivatives, whereas one, we offers the possibility for an extended suggest, view that goes beyond existing of conceptions CSR.

insofar as

on the direct phys it focuses mainly of the company, ical environment resulting in a on focus local communities (Altman, 1998). In line with is a this self-interested approach is body of literature in which CC as manifest in specific investments environment firm's social (Warhurst,

considerable discussed into the

CONVENTIONAL VIEWS OF CC
ventional In this section we use of CC the con critically analyze and prac in the academic literature, and we eluci

titioner management of this new date the potential implications we start call the "limited with what concept. We to the "equivalent view of CC" and then proceed view of CC."

& Barnett, 2000), which Gardberg, ultimately to of improve the economic help performance of the corporation. this ul Proponents approach timately see the contribution of CC to the debate on business-society in its economic relations an as to long-term maximi character approach zation of ("enlightened") self-interest through investment in the processes and rules corporate environment of the corporation's social (Seitz,

the language of corporate fi 2001). Following in terms of "so rationalize CC nance, scholars cial investing" (Waddock, 2001), in order to build "social (Habisch, Meister, & Schmid up capital" or (Fombrun, 2001) peter, "reputational capital"

Limited View ofCC

The identification of CC as charitable dona tions and dominant very much other forms of community action was in early usage of the term and is still in evidence

(1991), for today. Carroll a identifies "being good corporate cit example, izen" with philanthropic responsibility, which is his fourth level of CSR. CC is therefore a discre what is expected of tionary activity, beyond a to it choice business, making "put something it is merely into the community. Since back" "desired" by the community, this form of citizen to Carroll, "less im ship activity is, according than the other three categories" (1991: portant 42).

in terminology? Self-interest investment the corporate philanthropy, aspects and a focus on local com of social engagement, munities are certainly not elements that are par invention in ticularly new or that have not been discussed the literature on CSR before (e.g., Burke & Logs

2002). Does this limitedview ofCC really justifythe

of a new

don, 1996; Stroup & Neubert, 1987). Moreover, to be no common understanding there seems in this con the precise definition of CC about text?a problem that notions of "good" CC serve

tegic focus. In this view of CC, instead of engag cor ing in charity simply through munificence, in terms of strategic in CC engage porations is therefore de CC For the firm, philanthropy. including by self-interest, picted as motivated the insight that a stable social, environmental, ensures environment and political profitable

of this limited view tend to argue Proponents new contribution to of CC that the specifically is its stra the debate on corporate philanthropy

to confuse further. In addition, there is only lim ited reference to the fact that this new concept of of the term business and society makes usage refer occasional citizenship, beyond perhaps ence to being part of a common community. The limited view of CC has therefore not yet ex plained,

the notion of let alone conceptualized, in philanthropy. involved Overall, citizenship to this limited view the literature pertaining evidence for the does not provide convincing of a new terminology. necessity View of CC

business

to live and work, in turn making them better to business" do (Texas Instruments, 2002). places of the limited view of CC This is characteristic

(Windsor, 2001; Wood & Logsdon, 2001). A typical example of this type of CC is repre sented by Texas Instruments, which defines CC as "giving back where we to the communities them since better "makes this places operate,"

Equivalent

is of CC The second common understanding a con more general in scope and is essentially of CSR, flation of CC with existing conceptions without any new role for the corporation being in Carroll's defined. This is most evident (1998) article, "The Four Faces of Corporate Citizen

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2005

Matten

and

Crane

169

ethical, and philanthropic. Several authors have taken up this approach, in some cases using slightly different although For example, and col phrasing. Maignan & Ferrell, 2000, 2001; leagues (Maignan Maig nan, Ferrell, & Huit, 1999) have defined CC as "the extent to which businesses meet the eco

in exactly the author defines CC ship," where the same way that he initially defined CSR two decades four aspects: economic, ago?as legal,

CC

nomic, legal, ethical and discretionary respon sibilities imposed on them by their stakehold ers" (2000: 284). This is almost synonymous with Carroll's (1991) definition of CSR, albeit with a toward the meet slight refocusing of emphasis as opposed to the respon ing of responsibilities, a per sibilities themselves. This is essentially reflecting the prominence of CC in practitioner discourse. In much of the CC literature, scholars currently use the concept in this sense, stressing various formance-oriented reconceptualization (similar to Davenport, 2000), perhaps of CSR

taken up to the notion of citi without referring explicitly and explaining the reasons for this zenship a in context. business phraseology

clear, direct, and unambiguous the terminology of CC Again,

the authors refer though in our interpretations to in to this CC be way appear ring conflating CC with CSR, this literature is notably lacking a definition is also of CC.

perceived agement

and CSR, especially if they are subsequently as little more man than ephemeral fads or fashions. al Furthermore,

TOWARD AN EXTENDED THEORETICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CC

There has been only very limited discussion of the actual meaning of citizenship in the litera so far. It has, however, been al ture examined to in several recent articles (e.g., van & Wood, 2001; 2001; Windsor, Luijk, Logsdon, 2001). In this section we examine citizenship from its original political and theory perspective luded

Mclntosh, 2001b; Davenport, 2000). Thus, CC just functions as a new way of presenting existing to a wider range, or per concepts, but applied haps a different set, of issues.

(Marsden, aspects of CSR, such as sustainability the stewardship role of business 2000) and lines (Reilly & Kyj, 1994), or drawing conceptual the stakeholder toward (Andriof & approach

this to management apply thought in order to set out an extended theoretical conceptualiza tion of CC. on a particu This conceptualization is based lar school of liberal namely, of other conceptualizations of citizenship that for a slightly richer view of CC than may allow the one developed here (Moon, Crane, & Matten, in press), we base citizenship for Western What because thought in political science? citizenship. While we are aware

about business-society relations, to make them more accessible and at probably tractive to business audiences. This marketing of academic ideas is, inmany it can also respects, an important task. However, isting contribute to increased skepticism about

lar by Sundar, from an Indian perspective lan (Sundar, 2000), and Ulrich, in the German literature the CC la (Ulrich, 2000). Here, guage bel is simply used to rebrand and relaunch ex ideas

1997, and Mclntosh, Roy, & Regelbrugge, & Jones, Coleman, 1998). CC, from this Leipziger, is an extension of a very selectively perspective, defined view of CSR, as exemplified in particu Logan,

regards CC as an innovation to the CSR concept, sees itself as in that CC suggests that business is? CSR culture, whereas part of the public to so his view?more with concerned according as an external affair (see also cial responsibility

In the equivalent view of CC there again tends to be little, ifany, serious reflection on the notion of "citizenship" and its potential for sur For instance, Birch (2001) facing new meaning.

our analysis on this model of it is the principal template

democracy.

Is "Citizenship"?

idea of citizenship that "implies a in bounded membership political (normally national) (Hettne, 2000: 35). CC, fol community" are lowing this idea, implies that corporations superficial

Of the very limited number of management authors who specifically the no conceptualize tion of citizenship, few, if any, move beyond a

"legal entities with rights and duties, in effect, 'citizens' of states within which they operate" 2000: 11; see also Seitz, 2002). This (Marsden,

both

or European have unification, raised issues about the collective embedded ness of individuals and institutions in societies communism

reference to citizenship might reflect superficial a current debate in society where recent changes in various political domains, such as the fall of

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170

Academy

of Management

Review

lanuary

1995). Nevertheless, (Beiner, sional and direct application to be inappropriate. pears

the one-dimen to corporations ap

to offer management much is not that assimilation their theory, provided or obtuse careless, indiscriminate, (Knights & Willmott, 1997; Watson, 1997). In order to exam clearly have ine citizenship effectively, we need a more care approach interdisciplinary fully applied siders the criteria for the legitimate application of the concept. in of citizenship The dominant understanding in is located the societies most industrialized is defined as liberal tradition, where citizenship rights (Faulks, 2000: 55-82). the categorization widely accepted Following liberal T. H. Marshall, comprises citizenship by of entitlement: three different aspects civil, so set of individual 1965). cial, and political rights (Marshall, consist of those Social rights that pro rights vide the individual with the freedom to partici pate in society, such as the right to education, a that con

import largely a result of an impercipient theory, without ing of terminology from political for its theoretical underpinnings. consideration sci such as political other disciplines However, to be ence

the term citizenship Therefore, before applying it is useful to have a closer look to corporations, of this concept. The at and better understanding current treatment of citizen of the superficiality on literature CC appears ship in themanagement

the the rights), political rights move beyond mere of the individual's private protection sphere and toward his or her active participa tion in society. This includes the right to vote or the right to hold office and, generally speaking, to take part in the process entitles the individual of collective will formation in the public sphere. across There is, in principle, broad agreement countries

the nature of the fundamen regarding tal rights that should be enjoyed by a nation's in international citizens. This is evident agree declaration of hu ments, such as the universal man rights (signed by nearly 200 countries), and and conventions forty other declarations on human rights since 1948, including the inter on civil and political covenant national rights some course, there is considerable to defining it comes what in practice and these rights might constitute how they might be realized within specific con 2000). Of when divergence (Mor?is,

don

like "corporate citizenship" of something since social from this perspective, particularly as an and political rights cannot be regarded and Logs for a corporation. Wood entitlement enter that corporations (2001), however, suggest the picture not because they have an en cit titlement to certain rights, as an individual izen would, but, rather, as powerful public ac a responsibility to respect tors that have

texts, but that does not detract from the notion is based view of citizenship that the dominant on shared understandings of basic rights. it is somewhat hard to make At first glance, sense

of welfare. Civil care, or various aspects free those that of consist provide rights rights and interference by third par dom from abuses the ties (most notably among governments), own are to the which of most rights important freedom of speech, and en property, exercise health in "free" markets. gage Both types of rights clearly focus on the posi in society and help protect tion of the individual or status her his 2000). As (Eriksen & Weigdrd, some to extent, such, civil and social rights are, on the same continuum: civil rights extremes

citizen's rights. individual offers an This loosened concept of citizenship inWood of departure, although important point and Logsdon's (2001) treatment, this collapses of CC back into more conventional perspectives on CSR based (albeit by referring to a new nor such as the com mative concept of citizenship,

called (sometimes rights) protect the "negative" the interference of stronger individual against social powers; rights are entitle ("positive") ments toward third parties. The key actor here is government, which respects and grants the civil by the insti rights of "citizens" and?generally tutions of the welfare state?cares for the fulfill ment and protection of social rights. In contrast to these more passive rights (with or as of active facilitator respecter government

It is our intention, how munitarian approach). these ever, to proceed differently and to analyze a from Cling perspective. descriptive changes ing to the liberal view of citizenship, least officially dominates most modern to establish 1993), we want (Hindess, which societies

at

with govern associated and actions previously ment (Hertz, 2001a). By this, we want to show that CC is not simply about corporate social policies that might and programs not) be (or might

the rela in the con to citizenship tionship of corporations relations text of recent shifts in business-society take over many of the roles where corporations

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2005

Matten

and

Crane

171

in the same vein as CSR. Rather, we adopted that the effective functioning of liberal argue citizenship has been sufficiently affected by the to of government functions corporate uptake a in "citizenship" render corporate involvement largely clearly CC. one that unavoidable occurrence?and a shift toward the justifies terminology of

bate

attention triggers for the heightened in the business discourse community. on global the joint statement ple, emerged identifies inequalities nomic globalization" as key progenitors from the 2002 World

This is not only a reflection of the recent de in political theory (Turner, 2000) but, signif also seems to be one of the icantly, globalization to the CC For exam CC

that

Forum from "the forces of eco Economic

Liberal Citizenship, Globalization The

the State, and

to this view, (Hettne, 2000). According civil protects rights, provides welfare social which rights, and political tive decisions

actor within the liberal view of pivotal more state is the the or, precisely, citizenship institutions the nation-state of governmental the state to protect arena in collec

transition" and "political Forum, (World Economic to the UN Global the preamble 2002). Similarly, Compact makes explicit reference to the role of in focusing action on CC: globalization Amid a backdrop of rising concerns about the effects of globalization, the Secretary-General called on business leaders to join an interna tional initiative?the Global Compact?that would bring companies together with UN agen
cies,

are taken. Hence, citizenship to be inseparably would appear linked to a cer tain (national) is governed territory, which by a as guarantor of those citizenship sovereign state rights. the most important transition rais Probably in cit involvement ing the prospect of corporate to izenship rights is the failure of nation-states

constitutes the main are and exercised rights

and other civil-society actors to foster action and partnerships in the pursuit of good corporate cit izenship (Global Compact, 2002). As we have already made clear, such refer ences to CC do not tend to relate to anything different from CSR. However, the substantially widespread recognition here that globalization on cor has reshaped the demands being placed is significant. porations ries of these statements the signato Although do not themselves ad to shift dress the issue, globalization has helped some of the responsibility for protecting citizen from governments. ship rights away Corpora filled tions, we would argue, have increasingly that gap.

labour,

non-governmental

organizations

the sole guarantor of these rights any longer. to Falk (2000), the main reason for this According of (at least in the sense of reshaping citizenship the liberal view shared commonly by most in the of Western lies democracies) process in the tradi The rights embodied globalization. tional concept of citizenship are linked to a state in its own territory. The central that is sovereign characteristic of globalization, is the however,

be

of social, politi deterritorialization progressive economic interaction and cal, (Sch?lte, 2000). This means that a growing number of social are now activities the taking place beyond power and

Corporations

and

Liberal

Citizenship

influence of the nation-state. The dis states of is empowerment through globalization a rather subtle process nonetheless (Beck, 1998: governments territories. The are crucial effected by globalization changes are exposed to economic, that (1) nation-states action beyond their own social, and political control and face still have in their own

19-25). Nation-states with full sovereignty

is that corporations Our premise enter the arena of citizenship in circumstances tra where actors to ditional fail be the governmental of citizenship. As one element of "counterpart" the group of actors most central to globalization, and indeed one of its principal drivers (Sch?lte, have tended to partly take 2000), corporations over (or are expected to take over) certain func tions with regard to the protection, facilitation, an ex and enabling of citizens' rights?formerly on We pectation placed governments. solely

(2) actors within their own territories lower obstacles for dislocat increasingly activities into territories the control ing beyond of their original government.

thus contend that "corporations" and "citizen come in modern ship" together society at the ceases the state where to be the only guar point antor of citizenship?and that a term such as

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

Academy

of Management

Review

January

is a legitimate of citizenship way this situation. characterizing We posit three different ways in which gov ernmental and corporate roles in administering are changing: (1) where government citizenship corporate citizenship rights, (2)where as not has administered citizen government yet and where the administration of (3) ship rights, be of the reach citizenship rights may beyond the nation-state con Each of these government. texts brings forth a range of mechanisms ceases to administer

through which corporations might take over the administration of citizenship rights. These con texts and mechanisms apply to all three catego ries of rights. Where zenship, to enter ways: ceases to administer citi government this leaves open space for corporations (or not enter) the arena as administra

tors of citizenship. This may happen in two have the opportu (1) either corporations to step in where once nity (or are encouraged) or are acted, (2) corporations only governments active in the territory concerned and, already more pronounced their role becomes therefore,
as governments retreat.

(Hertz, 2001b). Whether through anticorporate protests, consumer boycotts, or other forms of action outside the usual political arena, individ ual citizens have sought to effect increasingly political change

choices and demands through which political have been channeled. In contrast, there appears to be a growing willingness on the part of indi to participate viduals in political action aimed at corporations rather than at governments

through lobbying and party funding has estab as more or less officially lished corporations arena of political in the accepted players rights More (see Reich, 1998). significant, we can see that voter apathy in national in many elections industrialized countries has increasingly weak ened the government's role as the sole conduit

tions might help to facilitate, enable, or block certain political in rather processes society, than directly take over former governmental At one level, corporate influence prerogatives.

have been encouraged to step in to corporations to those "positive" attend rights that govern actors mental have retreated from, either or wel of privatization through the mechanism fare reform. Many initiatives are CC so-called the wel (or replacing) targeted at reinvigorating fare state, such as improving deprived schools and neighborhoods (see David, 2000). In the area of civil rights, most developed countries their citizens with arguably provide reasonable

In the area of social rights, it is apparent from numerous instances of corporate action in the that the majority of activity called community occurs where CC by the business community

the power (or by leveraging of rather Hence, vulnerability) corporations. than replace here governments, corporations an additional could be said to have provided conduit (or another node in an existing conduit) through which litical rights. citizens could exercise their po

raises awareness of these "vacuums" and ex in particular to charges poses western MNCs that they are "responsible" in some way for ad ministering rights in such situations. citizenship This is because, in the absence of viable gov a ernmental become protection, corporations kind of "default option" for administering citi zenship rights. In the area of social

also enter the arena of citizen Corporations has not as yet adminis ship where government tered citizenship the rights. This is particularly case in developing countries. Globalization

tomaintain the protection of the civil rights of the Ogoni people (see Wheeler, that corpora Fabig, & Boele, 2002). Suggestions tions should civil rights are "step in" when are threatened indicate that, where corporations in some way active in a territory, gov already ernment retraction of protection might conceiv ably be partially offset by corporate action. In the area of political rights, the corporate role is actually rather more indirect. Corpora

protection of their civil rights. Gov ernmental in visible failure, however, becomes or countries. In developing transforming Nige in the Shell was ria, for example, implicated failure of the state

foreign direct investment decisions. In the area of civil rights, corporations might (or discourag play a crucial role in encouraging to provide ing) oppressive regimes protection because their very presence in the country al assumes some form of relation ready enabling

under the la Strauss, and others have engaged bel of CC. Here, in citizenship involvement or from arises from MNC outsourcing policies

rights, we have seen that in sweatshops, conditions improving working a and financ ensuring employees living wage, are the of child laborers all activ ing schooling as ities in which such Nike, Levi corporations

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2005

Matten

and

Crane

173

about the ship with the government. Questions Africa dur in South of multinationals presence era that illustrated the arguments ing apartheid both for and against could be made corpora role in promoting tions' having a more positive with through example, rights?for 1999: the Sullivan (de George, Principles arisen since have discussions Similar 542-548). in Burma. over the presence of multinationals area in of the rights, corpo political Similarly, rations can be seen as a default option in the (or unwilling inability rights. Thus, lobbying of been a potential, has sometimes though indirect, option open to those dispossessed of democratic rights to vote. As the South African case shows, a common pattern for how these a con actors become could relatively powerful face of governmental to protect basic civil accordance

to pro French pensioners rely on these markets the full tect their property, yet they are beyond or French control of the U.S. governments. are main global the since corporations Again, organizations active said they might to reform able be inworld financial markets, to be one of the few actors of them to improve protection

rights, the aforemen seem to suggest that some assume indirect themselves corporations rights if they adopt such a pivotal role political in granting and facilitating major rights linked evident to citizenship. This becomes especially in global gov current changes if one analyzes

property rights. In the area of political tioned arguments already

ness) MNCs more

ernance. lation,

duit forpolitical rights lies in their role in creat institutions and sustaining background ing at strengthening aimed rights in citizenship
general.

have stepped corporations dustry Partnership, active role in the in and taken an increasingly arena 1999; (Ronit & Schneider, global political Schneidewind, refrain We 1998). here the motiva from discussing tions that might lead (or not lead) corporations for administering to take on some responsibility a We these rights. range of motivations suggest

of regu With increasing privatization such as the Chemical through programs In Care or the Apparel Industry's Responsible

on the global is emerging of citizenship the administration level where the reach of the nation rights may be beyond such rights This is because state government. or deterrito are associated with supranational or the rialized entities, such as global markets A third scenario layer. Here, corporations may (ormay not) take on a role in reforming or creating transna tional institutions that administer rights where act cannot national effectively. governments In the area of social market ozone

to enlightened might be evident, from altruism or self-interest plain self-interest. We also do not to exercise discuss why citizens might choose

the rights, for instance, can investment direct for foreign global pressure on state regulation of put considerable It has been standards. social and environmental can offer "fa if that governments only argued in terms of low to MNCs vorable" conditions and limited social standards, depressed wages, can of conditions they sur regulation working vive to the bottom" and attract much desired (Scherer & Smid, foreign investment can it incumbent on become 2000). Accordingly, the "race

It is sufficient their rights through corporations. that the case for our argument simply to make can and has this shift in role for the corporation occurred and to set out, as we have done in the section, the contexts and mechanisms taken which this shift can and has through

preceding
place.

Defining CC
so far,we In light of the argument developed can now suggest a tentative definition of CC, as follows: CC describes the role of the corporation in administering rights for indi citizenship reframes CC away viduals. Such a definition from the notion in itself (as individuals

MNCs

interlinked by that is economically nation-states have markets, of only limited ability to protect certain aspects their citizens' property (one of their civil rights). life insurance With pension funds and being or U.S. linked to international markets, capital global financial

to protect (or not rather than governments as such social through the intro rights, protect) of codes conduct. duction of global that In terms of civil rights, we might suggest in a world

acknowledgement isters certain aspects constituencies.

for other of citizenship These include traditional stake or such as employees, customers, holders, but also include wider constituen shareholders, to cies with no direct transactional relationship the company.

is a citizen that the corporation the and toward are) that the corporation admin

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

Academy

of Management

Review

January

FIGURE 1
An Extended Theoretical Conceptualization of Corporate Citizenship

Corporate

citizenship

Social

role of the corporation

in administering

citizenship

rights

Social

rights

corporation

as provider

Civil

rights

corporation

as

enabler

Political rights

corporation

as

channel

to suggest do not wish that corporations the oniy actors administering these rights? over that have taken considerable merely they from governments. responsibility By administra a number of different tion of rights, we mean We are regard to social the either rights, corporation basically or not does individuals with supplies supply social services and, hence, administers rights role. In the case of civil by taking on a providing (see Figure 1).With or con rights, the corporation either capacitates strains citizens' civil rights and, so, can be as administrating viewed through more of an in the realm of political role. Finally, an addi is essentially the rights, corporation tional conduit for the exercise of individuals' roles and actions

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

in terminology within the debate The change on business-society relations to embrace the no tion of CC is certainly significant but, from our

On the one hand, CC perspective, problematic. as understood within the two conventional per to provide little of substance appears spectives to the debate on CSR?and, insofar as it contrib utes to conceptual confusion, may even be coun

enabling

more

political assumes
role.

rights; hence, the corporation primarily administration through a channeling this initial conceptualization it is important to recognize a descriptive is essentially of what does of that con

and more descrip theoretically grounded tive of a particular role that some corporations are playing. As such, it surfaces several impor tant implications.

of the term citizenship terproductive. The usage to be at least stretched, here seems if not an as con misnomer. other On the hand, outright ceived in our extended CC is conceptualization,

In presenting CC, however, CC so defined ceptualization a normative

work

happen. tion, there are gers associated extended

rather than happen, of what should conceptualization in the next sec Indeed, as we elucidate considerable with of CC. and dan problems in this the role described

in the management literature. Rather than same on the level with other "private" being as we have de citizens, "corporate" citizenship fined it implies that corporations have replaced some of the functions of the institution deemed the most

view of CC rests on sub First, the extended different notions of citizenship than stantially those implied in the majority of the published

view

in the traditional concept of powerful that in citizenship. Therefore, one might suggest the more robust conception of citizen applying

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2005

Matten

and

Crane

175

the state, with only very limited, ifany, attention intention has to the role of corporations. Our can been to argue that the notion of citizenship to manage introduced be most appropriately ment theory as a way of descriptively framing the empirical relationship the corporation, regardless about

theory, we have simply im view of the role of private be a misapprehension. This would enterprise. in political The citizenship concept theory has on to of the individual the relationship focused from political ported a different ship

role of business.

to virtually of 1998 make. Shell's Report Livesey's analysis to Society illustrates this vividly: "While explic 'government itly rejecting a role for Shell as . . .and stand-in (2002; 26), Livesey nanny'" shows that the report also notes Shell had pro and services vided public schools, (hospitals, roads) ments in certain poor countries where govern at one level we could put did not. While level this down to simple hypocrisy, on another to obfuscate it serves of social processes for more extent to which research: cor

Such distinctions, however, for these corporations impossible

are

to of the individual of one's normative role corporations

assumptions should play. Second,

what

This clearly calls change. the actual first, to examine

could, in some respects, be appro development priate, but we prefer at this juncture to seek in the use of CC greater clarity and precision serves to avoid further While this terminology. use new in labels the of conceptual multiplying reason to retain the of CSR, the main our is of for CC conceptualization terminology as follows. We have identified citizenship as an are involved: arena where two parties (1) the as state the party administering (originally) the area rights of citizenship and (2) the private citizen as then ar the receiver of those rights. We have have become major ac gued that corporations tors in this arena. Our extended conceptualiza in the administration tion locates CC

there is, of course, a case for arguing this that, given our extended conceptualization, a new role should be given social (extended) label, such as corporate administra conceptual tion of citizenship "CAC"). Such a (as it were,

sec have undertaken such practices; porations to reveal whether ond, managers corporate for such have, or feel that they have, a mandate more action; and, third, to understand clearly how

to resolve the tensions created by the ap placed on man parently contradictory demands in this respect. agement of This leads to a third observation: regardless enter the arena of the motivation, corporations basis. There is no citizenship on a discretionary or legal framework specific political tionalizes a corporate responsibility istering citizenship rights. Even serve numerous activities of CC that instu for admin so, we can ob that are, in the

majority,

for the benefit If governments

worthy. ity to facilitate happy

of

in the liberal view, is citizenship rights, which, clearly an aspect of citizenship. Of course, this does not mean that corporations "are" citizens, or that they "have" citizenship, but they are cer in citizenship and exhibit citizen tainly active zenship contrast The terminology corporate ship behaviors. is an appropriate description?albeit to the way ithas been used literature. of CC ac existing conceptualizations more a much modest role for cor suggest tually our than the porations underlying reality?and extended conceptualization?indicates. As Live such as Shell, sey (2002) has shown, corporations Indeed, po tradition responsibilities beyond of corporations, ally expected frequently have to this extended role and eluci sought downplay date to the public the "proper" (i.e., more limited) litical those have been under pressure to assume citi in so far in the

CC

if corporations fill this gap. But should society really be positive about this? The imme is if corporations diate question have assumed such a pivotal role in society, what happens if, or when, they decide not to be involved in CC? If in the realm of corporate simply remains to claim discretion, society is not readily able in the these citizenship rights as "inalienable" of usual sense. Corporations might be unaware

of society and praise fail in their responsibil society can only be citizenship,

the issues, public pressure might direct their or itmight not be in their attention elsewhere, self-interest to get involved. IfCC involves cor in areas of such importance as citizen porations if the administra ship rights, it is problematic tion of these rights is a nonmandatory (and, even man of aspect currently, unacknowledged) discretion. agerial This leads to a more general, and in fact more

which

to CC: connected if cor fundamental, problem over take vital functions of govern porations that they should also ments, one could argue assume the type of accountability that exactly

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

176

Academy

of Management

Review

January

modern

societies

demand

sibilities Similar process. through the electoral however, do not exist with regard mechanisms, to corporations. When Levi Strauss closed down in El Paso, Texas?a three of its four plants city where the company was the largest single em was to the Haas ployer?it only accountable owns who the the se company, despite family vere effects on the social of rights employees and on the region. Similarly, companies such as Enron can administer funds with huge pension out any substantial

are rights. Governments to their citizens and, in principle, accountable or discharged could be approved of their respon facilitator of citizens'

from government

as a

of corporate administration ity and performance can be assessed and compared with traditional administration. government A second centers important area of research on new constituencies of stakeholders. While of CC consider chiefly traditional stakeholder notion of CC, groups, an extended on citizenship based the scope rights, enlarges to "citizens" of potential constituencies in a sense broader & Moon, (Crane, Matten, 2004). could be analo constituency are respon to those of which gous governments, sible to society as a whole and are linked to their constituencies by a shared territorial basis. in context the of MNCs this is more However, complex, since there is no clear territorial delim itation. Typical here would be who questions are these constituencies? What expectations do they have? And how can corporations prioritize balance be a nec in a foranswering essary prerequisite questions third and possibly the most critical area of re search: what are the consequences in terms of for the administration corporate accountability Research their presumed rights? in these two areas would This broadened extant notions

to their em accountability about the their way ployees they (dis)respect civil right to own property. And when ExxonMo to pull out of the bil lobbies the U.S. government it is not an Kyoto global warming protocols, swerable in law to disclose such actions to the voting public. Such a demand would, however, of course rep resent an importation of a normative assump tion from political the administra theory?that tion of citizenship should be balanced with a

and

in recent of accountability. However, degree of the years corporate question accountability has been rapidly rising up the social, political, and economic and is one that manage agenda ment theorists and practictioners increasingly have to take seriously (Zadek, Pruzan, & Evans, an area where much more this is 1997). Clearly,
research in a number of new areas is needed.

performance

PERSPECTIVES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

raises a number of The preceding discussion further re that require important implications can be cat search. These research perspectives into three main areas. egorized a broad conceptual First, we have established framework for understanding CC. Further re to delineate the exact nature search is required

cal, and environmental performance through new accounting procedures (e.g., Livesey, 2002; Zadek et al., 1997). In a similar vein, in another recent stream of literature, researchers have issues of communication looked at broader with as well as development of stake stakeholders, holder dialogue and stakeholder partnerships (e.g., Bendell, 2000; Crane & Livesey, 2003). How in become involved ever, when corporations functions the issue yond tion. In to governments, formerly attributed of accountability be clearly moves the level of accounting and communica further seek

of corporations in meeting those an to stream This links expectations. emerging of literature examining the possibility for corpo rations to audit and report on their social, ethi

of citizenship for example, rights? We might, seek to investigate the effectiveness and quality of different mechanisms citizens which through and assess could express their expectations the

industries, and examine might and systems

in from governments each of the three contexts, as well as the ante cedents and influences on the different mecha nisms companies, likely to be evident across have this role countries. which been researchers Similarly, processes managerial used and how the qual

of citizenship of the corporate administration for Researchers instance, explore might, rights. in more detail the extent to which corporations taken over

research, therefore, scholars to the relative quality, investigate might and of the mecha effectiveness, desirability in nisms through which citizens can participate to ensure that and even control corporations their rights are adequately protected. from the perspective Thus, here, developed the rather than being, as many have claimed,

have

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2005 Matten and Crane 177 et al., to urgent problems (e.g., Habisch sense is, in 2001; 1), CC in its more meaningful itself. Manage the problem fact, just as much have yet to fully come to grips ment researchers stake of how with the question (or whether) more and reporting?and, holder engagement solution broadly play a "stakeholder even, democracy"?can be the relationship role in managing as admin tween us as citizens and corporations since cor istrators of our citizenship. Similarly, as in the active players porations have emerged we of citizenship, administration might question how their role could and should that of governmental tors. It is our hope theoretical and interlock with ac nongovernmental this ex
social performance. 4: 497-505. Academy of Management Review.

Carroll,

social of corporate A. B. 1991. The pyramid respon of organiza the moral Toward management sibility: Business Horizons. tional stakeholders. 34(4): 39-48. A. B. 1998. The and B. Society four faces Review. of corporate 100: 1-7. citizenship.

Carroll,

Business Carroll, A.

evolution 38: 268-295. Clarkson, M.

social 1999. Corporate construct. of a definitional

responsibility? & Society, Business

B. E.

1995. A stakeholder corporate Review. social

framework

for analyz Acad

ing and evaluating emy of Management Crane,

performance. 20: 92-117.

of CC, conceptualization the nature of these prob greater clarity about solu and appropriate lems can be discerned tended tions can ultimately be devised.

that by presenting

holder

S. 2003. Are A, & Livesey, and communication In J. Andriof,

to me? Stake you talking of rewards the risks and S. Rahman, vol. & 2: thinking,

dialogue. B. Husted 39-52. Crane,

S. Waddock,

stakeholder (Eds.), Unfolding Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. D., & Moon, J. 2004.

A., Matten,

Stakeholder and

as

citi

Rethinking Journal of Business Davenport,

zens?

rights, participation Ethics. 53: 107-122.

democracy.

REFERENCES
Altman, B. W. 1990s: A Business Altman, in the relations 1998. Corporate community abstract). (dissertation study in transformation 37: 221-227. & Society, & Vidaver-Cohen, D. 2000. A framework for to the Introduction citizenship: corporate and Society Review of Business "Corpo and Business and the new millennium." 105: 1-7. M. (Eds.). 2001a. Perspectives UK: Greenleaf. Introduction. on corporate on cor

proach

K. 2000. Corporate citizenship: social for defining corporate for assessing

identifying measures ety, 39: 210- 219. David, R. (Ed.). 2000. Business (Financial

ap and performance & Soci it. Business

A stakeholder

B. W.,

year 2000 Times. De George, River, Donaldson,

Times

BITC awards in the community: Financial London: Guide).

understanding edition special Society Andriof, porate Andriof, rate citizenship Review,

R. T. 1999. Business NJ: Prentice Hall.

ethics

(5th ed.). Upper

Saddle

T., & Preston,

L. E. 1995. The evidence, Review.

stakeholder and 20: 65-91.

theory of

J.,& Mclntosh, citizenship. & Mclntosh, J.,

the corporation: Concepts, of Management Academy Eriksen,

implications.

Sheffield, M. 2001b.

Andriof In J. citizenship:

&

M. Mclntosh

13-24. Sheffield, Beaver, W. 1999. 42(2):

(Eds.), Perspectives UK: Greenleaf. Is the stakeholder 8-12. wird Demokratie

E., & Weigdrd, J. 2000. The end of citizenship? & I. Hampsher-Monk C. McKinnon (Eds.), The demands 13-24. London: Continuum. citizenship: R. 2000. The ization. decline of citizenship 4: 5-17. Studies, London: in an era of global

In of

model

dead?

Business

Falk,

Horizons. Beck, U.

Citizenship

1998. Wie

im Zeitalter In U. [Politics

der Global Beck (Ed.),

Faulks, Fombrun,

K. 2000. Citizenship. C.

Routledge.

isierung m?glich??Eine Politik der Globalisierung 7-66. Beiner, R. Frankfurt/Main:

Einleitung.

of globalization]:

Suhrkamp.

L. 2000. Oppor J., Gardberg, nets: and citizenship Corporate safety tunity platforms 105: risk. Business and Society Review. and reputational N. A., & Barnett, M. 85-106. R. E. 1984. Strategic Pitman. A stakeholder

a theoretical constitutes 1995. Why citizenship In of the twentieth century. in the last decade problem 1-28. Albany: R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing citizenship: of New York Press. State University J. (Ed.). 2000. Terms sustainable for endearment: Sheffield, Business. NGOs UK: Greenleaf. business

Freeman,

management:

approach. Global

Boston:

Bendell, and Birch, D.

2002. Guide Compact. a practical understanding

to the Global of the vision

and

development.

2001. Corporate corporate

beyond

(Ed.), Perspectives field, UK: Greenleaf. Burke,

citizenship?rethinking In M. Mclntosh social responsibility. on corporate 53-65. Shef citizenship:

ples. http://www.unglobalcompact.org, cember 12, 2002. Habisch, A., Meister, H. P., & as

Compact? nine princi De accessed

Corporate lin: Logos. Hertz, N. 2001a.

citizenship

R. (Eds.). Schmidpeter, in social investing capital.

2001. Ber

M. 1996. How corporate social L., & Logsdon, respon J. 495-502. 29: off. pays Planning. Long Range sibility A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional model of corporate

The Better Review.

silent

takeover.

London:

Heinemann. Business Ethics: A

Hertz, N. 2001b. European

Carroll,

to shop than to vote? 10: 190-193.

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

178 B. 2000.

Academy

of Management

Review

January

Hettne,

The

Citizenship Hindess, don: Knights, B.

Studies.

fate of citizenship 4: 35-46.

in Post-Westphalia. In B. S. Lon

Schneidewind,

Turner

1993. Citizenship (Ed.), Citizenship H.

in the modern and social

West.

U. 1998. Die als struktur Unternehmung as an actor in struc Akteur. [The corporation politischer tural politics]. Marburg: Metropolis. A. 2000. Globalization; J. UK: Palgrave. A critical introduction. Bas

theory:

19-35.

Sch?lte,

Sage. D., & Willmott, 1997. The hype and hope of inter studies. British of Journal Seitz,

ingstoke,

disciplinary Management.

management 8(1): 9-22.

S. 2002. The discourse of the middle Livesey, ground: Citizen Shell to sustainable commits development. Manage ment Communication 15: 313-349. Quarterly. Logan, L. 1997. Global D., Roy, D., & Regelbrugge, corporate and strategies. DC: Washington,

B. 2002. The economic to corporate citizen approach In H. von Weltzien Hoivik argument. ship: The economic in action: 42-52. Cheltenham, (Ed.), Moral UK: leadership Edward Elgar. M. A., & Neubert, Business R. L. 1987. The evolution 22-24. charity to of social

Stroup,

responsibility. Sundar,

Horizons.

30(2):

P. 2000. Beyond

business?from Indian Delhi: Tata a social Review.

merchant business

citizenship?rationale Hitachi Foundation. Maignan,

corporate through Swanson, D.

citizenship. the ages. New L.

philanthrophy McGraw-Hill. problem by model.

I., & Ferrell, O. C. 2000. Measuring citi corporate in two countries: The case of the United States zenship and France. 23: 283-297. Ethics. Journal of Business I., & Ferrell, O. C. 2001. Antecedents investigation Research. and benefits busi of

reorienting Academy Texas

1995. Addressing the corporate

theoretical

of Management

performance 20: 43-64.

Maignan,

Instruments. the communities,

An corporate citizenship: nesses. Journal of Business Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C,

of French 51: 37-51.

2002. Corporate

citizenship:

Giving

back

to

citizen/index.shtml, Turner, B. S.

http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/ accessed 7, 2002. May essay: and Citizenship Studies. 4(1): 81-86. Liberalismus and political

& Huit, G.

T. M.

Cultural and antecedents citizenship: of Marketing Journal of the Academy 469. Marsden, ness: Society Marshall, ment. Mclntosh, C. 2000. The Review. T. H. New M., new

1999. Corporate business benefits. Science. 27: 455

2000. Review Citizenship

globalization. Ulrich,

P. 2000. Repulikanischer

Part of the solution

of big busi corporate citizenship to sustainability. and Business van

Citizenship zenship]. Institute Gallen.

liberalism [Republican No. 18 of the Discussion for Business Ethics of

und Corporate citi corporate of the of St.

105: 9-25. citizenship Books. and social develop G.

Series Paper the University

1965. Class, York: Anchor Leipziger, D.,

Jones, K., & Coleman,

1998.

in Europe: ethics A tale of Luijk, H. J. L. 2001. Business two efforts. In R. Frederick to business (Ed.), A companion ethics: 643-658. Cambridge, Blackwell. MA, & Oxford: S. 2001. bottom lines of corporate and responsi investing, reputation, Business and Society Review. 105: 323-345. multiple good citizenship. The Futur The

Successful Corporate citizenship: ble companies. London: Financial Miller, W. H.

for responsi strategies Times/Pitman. to ignore. Can Industry

Waddock,

Week. Moon,

September

1998. Citizenship that's hard 2: 22-24. A., & Matten, Corporate D. In press.

citizenship: bility audits.

Social

J.,Crane, be citizens? business terly.

participation 2000. The of

corporations as a metaphor for citizenship in society. Business Ethics Quar of human financial law in

C. G. 2001. Evaluating Wagner, ist. July-August: 16. Warhurst, investment. Wartick, S.

A. 2001. Corporate as corporate social citizenship 1: 57-73. Journal of Corporate Citizenship. L., & Cochran, social Review. P. L. 1985. The model. evolution of the of Man

Mor?is, and

H. V.

the role

globalization international rights. George 33: 71-96. new meaning

rights institutions

corporate agement

performance 10: 758-769.

Academy work:

promoting tional Law Reich, R. B.

human Review.

Washington

Interna

1998. The

sponsibility.

California

of corporate Review. Management citizenship.

social

re

T. J. 1997. Theorizing Watson, managerial to interdisciplinary pluralist approach Journal Wheeler, of Management. 8: 3-8.

A pragmatic research. British

40(2): 8-17. Review of

& Kyj, M. J. 1994. Corporate Reilly, B. J., Business. 16(1): 37-43. Roberts, S., Keeble, J.,& Brown,

D., Fabig, and di H., & Boele, R. 2002: Paradoxes lemmas for stakeholder firms in the extrac responsive tive sector: Lessons from the case of Shell and the Journal of Business Ethics, 38: 297-318.

D. 2002. The business

case

for

Ogoni. Windsor,

corporate Ronit,

citizenship, V.

www.adlittle.com. 1999. Global Governance: Administration, 2000. The downward principles: Why MNEs of world-wide governance through An International 12: 243-266. spiral and the should take social and International

K., & Schneider,

private Journal Scherer,

organizations. of Policy and

D. 2001. Corporate Evolution and inter citizenship: In J. Andriof & M. Mclntosh (Eds.), Perspectives pretation. on corporate 39-52. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. citizenship: D. J. 1991. Corporate of Management social Review, performance 16: 691-718. revisited.

Wood,

A. G., & Smid, M. business

Academy Wood, D.

U.S. model responsibility environmental Review.

for improvement conditions. Management

on

M. 2001. Theorising citi business J.,& Logsdon, J. In Andriof & M. Mclntosh J. (Eds.), Perspectives zenship. corporate leaf. citizenship: 83-103. Sheffield, UK: Green

40: 351-371.

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2005 Matten

and

Crane

179

World

Economie The

Forum.

2002. Global for CEOs and The

leadership challenge World Economic Forum ness Leaders Forum.

corporate citizenship: and boards. Geneva: Prince of Wales Busi

Zadek,

S., Pruzan,

P., & Evans,

R.

(Eds.).

accountability: ethical accounting, Earthscan.

rate

Emerging auditing

1997. Building corpo in social and practices and London: reporting.

Dirk Matten UK. He

intoSustainability (CRIS) at theRoyal Holloway College of theUniversityof London,

received his doctoral D?sseldorf. His and degree research interests his habilitation from Heinrich-Heine and are in business ethics international

is a professor

of business

ethics

and

director

of the Centre

for Research

University management. Andrew Corporate his Ph.D. business stakeholder

Crane Social

is a senior

lecturer

in business at

ethics

at

the International

Centre

for

Responsibility from the University ethics and

(ICCSR)

organization, and communication,

of Nottingham. theoretical organizational

the University His current approaches greening.

of Nottingham. He interests research to corporate

earned include

citizenship,

This content downloaded from 111.68.102.44 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:36:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions