04.09.2019
 Essay on A Dynamic Functions Perspective

Corporate Interpersonal Responsibility and Environmental Supervision Corp. Soc. Responsib. Presque. Mgmt. 18, 285–293 (2011)

Published on the web 6 August 2010 in Wiley On the web Library

(wileyonlinelibrary. com) DOI: 10. 1002/csr. 251

Strategic Corporate Cultural Responsibility:

A ‘Dynamic Capabilities' Perspective

Venugopal Ramachandran*

Insitute for Financial Management and Research, Chennai, India

ABSTRACT

In this daily news, strategic corporate and business social responsibility (CSR) is defined on the basis of Porter's theory of competitive advantage. Two kinds of dynamic capabilities are proposed as the precursors to strategic CSR accomplishment and operationalized in terms of two sets of associated processes. The effectiveness of these processes is postulated being dependent on their particular attributes as well as the human and social capital employed in these people. Implications to get practitioners and researchers are outlined. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Kids, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 14 March 2010; revised twenty-two August 2010; accepted thirty-one August 2010 Keywords: strategic CSR; energetic capabilities; environment management capability; impact analysis processes

Advantages

B

USINESS ORGANIZATIONS HAPPEN TO BE UNDER INCREASING PRESSURE TO PARTICIPATE IN FIXING SOCIAL CONCERNS. The range of problems that they are really expected to participate in is quite wide; indeed, according to one author, ‘virtually nothing at all that culture at large want to achieve is definitely beyond the scope of business ethics' (Wilcke, 2004, p. 197). Given this pressure and the fact that corporate interpersonal responsibility (CSR) entails costs, business organizations happen to be faced with the contradictory scenario of having to engage in cultural problems on the one hand and retaining profits on the other. Finding ways that social goals can be attacked in ways that might not adversely affect profits is as a result an issue of interest to managers and administration researchers. From this backdrop, an expanding stream of practitioner-oriented literature describes a number of CSR – termed tactical philanthropy or strategic CSR – that may not only consult economic returns on a firm and thus off-set the cost of CSR, but likewise lead to competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer, 2002; 06\; Falck and Heblich, 3 years ago; Sasse and Trehan, 2007; Heslin and Ochoa, 2008). As far as the academic literature is concerned, there have been some contributions that contain sought to model proper CSR. There is, however , scope for a even more theoretically demanding definition from the ‘strategic CSR' construct and an identification of firm-specific precursors to ‘strategic CSR' success. This kind of paper aims to contribute through this direction. In the succeeding section, we cite a behavioral definition of strategic CSR that is seated in the placement school of thought in strategy – more specifically in Porter's (1980; 1985) theory of competitive benefit. In the next section, we consider the precursors of tactical CSR accomplishment. We draw from the literary works on the resource-based view with the firm and dynamic capacities to identify two kinds of powerful capabilities as the necessary precursors to effective strategic CSR. We likewise point to how these features can be operationalized in

*Correspondence to: Venugopal Ramachandran, Institute for Financial Management and Research, twenty four Kothari Highway, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nada, India 600034. E-mail: [email protected] ac. in

Copyright © 2010 David Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

286

V. Ramachandran

terms of two units of connected processes. All of us conclude using a discussion of your research and bureaucratic implications.

What is Strategic CSR?

The academic literary works on CSR has outlined the lack of general opinion and the existing confusion in defining CSR (Baron, 3 years ago; Margolis and Walsh, 2003; McWilliams ainsi que al., 2006; Mackay ainsi que al., 2007). Elsewhere in the literature they have also been remarked that the lack of just one, universally accepted definition of CSR may not be very difficult, since, inspite of...

References: Amit R, Schoemaker PJH. 1993. Strategic possessions and organizational rent. Strategic Management Log 14(1): 33–46.

Annamalai E, Rao H. 2003. ITC's e-choupal and profitable countryside transformation. What works case study. World Resources Institute. Washington

DC, USA.

Barney JB. 1991. Company resources and sustained competitive advantage. Log of Managing 17(1): 99–120.

Baron DP. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. Log of Economics & Supervision Strategy 16(4): 539–545.

Junker DP. 2001. Private governmental policies, corporate sociable responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 10(1): 7–45.

Blyler Meters, Coff RW. 2003. Dynamic capabilities, social capital and rent appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strategic Supervision Journal 24:

677–686.

Clarkson M. 1995. A stakeholder framework to get analyzing and evaluating corporate and business social efficiency. Academy of Management Assessment 20:

92–117.

Coleman JS. 1988, Interpersonal capital inside the creation of human capital. American Record of Sociology. 94: S95–S120.

Collis DJ, Montgomery CALIFORNIA. 1998. Company strategy – A resource-based approach. Irwin-McGraw Hill: New york city.

Dahlsrud A. 2008. How corporate sociable responsibility is definitely defined. Business Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15(1): 1–13.

D'Aveni RA. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the characteristics of strategic maneuvering. Free of charge Press: Nyc, NY.

Day time G. 1994. The capabilities of market driven agencies. Journal of Marketing 58: 37–52.

Dougherty M. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful merchandise innovation in large firms. Organization Scientific research 3: 179–202.

Eisenhardt KILOMETRES, Tabrizi BN. 1995. Speeding up adaptive procedures: product creativity in the global computer industry. Administrative Research

Quarterly 40(1): 84–110.

Eisenhardt KM, Matn JA. 2150. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Managing Journal 21: 1105–1121.

Falck O, Heblich S. 2007. Doing well getting into good. Organization Horizons 60: 247–254.

Scholarhip RM. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications pertaining to strategy ingredients. California Administration Review 3:

114–135.

Give RM. mil novecentos e noventa e seis. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational ability as expertise integration. Corporation Science

7(4): 375–387.

Hamel G, Prahalad CK. 93. Strategy because stretch and leverage. Harvard Business Assessment 68(2): 75–84.

Hart S. 1995. An all-natural resource-based perspective of the firm. Academy of Management Review 20: 986–1014.

Helfat CE, Raubitschek RS. 2000. Merchandise sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and items. Strategic Supervision Journal

21(10–11): 961–979.

Henderson R, Cockburn I. 1994. Measuring proficiency? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal

15: 63–84.

Heslin PA, Ochoa JD. 2008. Understanding and developing proper corporate cultural responsibility, Organizational Dynamics 37(2): 125–144.

Hillman AJ, Keim GD. 2001. Shareholder worth, stakeholder management, and cultural issues: Precisely the bottom line? Tactical Management

Log 22(2): 125–139.

Husted BW, Salazar JJ. 2006. Acquiring Friedman really: maximizing profits and sociable performance. Journal of Supervision Studies 43: 75 –91.

Kogut W, Zander U. 1992. Understanding of the firm, combinative features, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3): 383–397.

Kohli AK OG VE, Jaworski M. 1990. Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial significance. Journal of promoting 54:

1–18.

Leal FJEOFJ, Fa MC, Pascola JV. 2003. Applying environmental managing systems to enhance firms' competition. Corporate Social Responsibility

and Environmental Supervision 10(2): 101–110.

Margolis JD, Walsh JP. 2003. Unhappiness loves corporations: Rethinking interpersonal initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 655–689.

Mackey A, Mackey TB, Barney JB. 2007. Business social responsibility and firm performance: Entrepreneur preferences and corporate strategies.

Mario J, Maximiano B. 3 years ago. A strategic integral approach (SIA) to institutionalizing CSR. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management 14(4): 231–242.

McGrath RG. MacMillan IC, Venkataraman S. 1995. Defining and developing competence: A strategic process paradigm. Tactical Management

Log 16(4): 251–175.

McWilliams A, Siegel DS. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Organization Perspective. Schools of Management Review 26(1):

117–127.

McWilliams A, Siegel DS, Wright P. 06\. Corporate interpersonal responsibility: Strategic implications. Record of Management Studies 43(1): 1–17.

Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Theoret A. 1976. The composition of ‘unstructured' decision techniques. Administrative Scientific research Quarterly twenty one: 246–275.

Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S. 98. Social capital intellectual capital and the organizational advantage, Academy of Supervision Review 23(2): 242–266.

Peteraf MA. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage. Tactical Management Diary 14(3): 179–191.

Porter MYSELF, Kramer MR. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate charity. Harvard Organization Review 80(12): 57–68.

Porter ME, Kramer MR. 06\. Strategy & society. Harvard Business Review 84(12): 78–92.

Porter ME PERSONALLY. 1985. Competitive Advantage. Free of charge Press: New york city, NY.

Introductions A. 1998. Social capital: its roots and applications in contemporary sociology. Twelve-monthly Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.

Russo Meters, Fouts G. 1997. A resource–based point of view on corporate and business environmental overall performance and profitability. Academy of Management

Log 40: 534–59.

Sasse CENTIMETER, Trahan RT. 2007. Rethinking the new corporate and business philanthropy. Business Horizons 60: 29–38.

Schaefer A. 2004. Corporate durability – developing environmental and social problems? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management 11(4): 179–187.

Teece DISC JOCKEY, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Energetic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Managing Journal 18(7): 509–533.

Upton DM, Fuller VA. 2004. The ITC eChoupal initiative. Case study Not any 0–404–16. Harvard Business University Publishing: Boston, MA.

Weick KE. 95. Sensemaking in organizations. Sage: Thousand Oak trees, CA.

Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D. june 2006. Organizing and the process of perception making. Corporation Science 16(4): 409–421.

Wernerfelt B. 1984. A resource-based view in the firm. Ideal Management Record 5(2): 171–180.

Wilcke RW. 2004. An appropriate ethical unit for business and a critique of Milton Friedman's thesis. Independent Assessment 9(2): 187–200.