CSR Maturity Model – Theoretical Framework

Ewa Głuszek

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/JCRL.2017.015

Abstract


The article presents the author’s model of maturity of corporate social responsibility, which covers two main dimen-sions: cultural and strategic, and five levels of maturity. Each dimension contains a number of characteristics that describe it, and the description differs for each level. The cultural dimension is related to the concepts of the culture of stakeholders presented by Maon, Lindgreen and Swaen (2010), and previous proposals by Jones, Felps and Bigley (2007), and contains one variable: a stake-holder culture type. The second dimension, strategic, contains two sub-dimensions. The first one is the type of CSR (the distinction between the type of corporate social responsibility), referring to the concepts of Kourula and Halme (2008), and Rangan et al. (2012). The second sub-dimension is the sphere of influence con-cept, or the limits of corporate responsibility that it is willing to accept – based on Wood’s (2012) and Baumol’s (1970) concepts. Depending on the company’s culture of stakeholders, the type of CSR involved, and the sphere of influence involved, the enter-prise can be found at one of five levels of maturity: Elementary, Engaged, Innovative, Integrated, or Transformational.

Purpose: The article is an attempt of conceptualization CSR according to a more dynamic application orientated perspective. The aim is understanding in what way the social responsibility can develop and root in the company’s management system. The use of the maturity model will allow managers to determine at what stage of CSR development their company is located.

Design/methodology/approach: The research method is based on the analysis of the subject literature and evaluation of the results of the research procedure.

Findings: Depending on the company’s culture of stakeholders, the type of CSR involved, and the sphere of influence involved, the enterprise can be found at one of five levels of maturity: Elementa-ry, Engaged, Innovative, Integrated, or Transformational.

Research and practical limitations/implications: The presented model contains only a very general theoretical framework, but will allow for the development of the characteristics in the future and to operationalize them to give managers clear guidance as to what the company is doing well and which practices should still be implemented or further developed.

Originality/value: A different conceptions of organisational development are matching with evolutionary nature of CSR. The main advantage of using the maturity model is the ability to determine at what stage of development the social responsibility of the company is located. Self-assessment with such a model provides managers with the knowledge of what the company is already doing in the field and what areas it should still pay atten-tion to possibly develop its CSR. The theoretical framework for the development of social responsibility presented in the article will also allow for further directions, in-depth empirical research, verifying the consistency of issues contained in particular char-acteristics (dimensions and levels) and the actual development of such practices in Polish companies.

Paper type: working paper.


Keywords


maturity model; corporate social responsibility; stake-holder culture; CSR type; sphere of influence

Full Text:

PDF

References


Baumol, W.J. (Ed.) (1970), A New Rationale for Corporate Social Policy, Committee for Economic Development (CED), New York.

Berger, I.E., Cunningham, P., Drumwright, M.E. (2007), “Mainstreaming Corporate Social Responsibility: Developing Markets for Virtue”, California Management Review, Vol. 49, Issue 4, pp. 132 – 157.

Davis, K. (1975), “Five Propositions for Social Responsibility”, Business Horizons, Vol. 18, Issue 3, pp. 19 – 24.

Garriga, E, Melé, D. (2004), “Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, Issue 1 – 2, pp. 51 – 71.

Goldenson, R., Gibson, D. (2003), Demonstrating the Impact and Benefits of CMMI®: An Update and Pre-liminary Results, Special Report. Retrieved from http://ralphy-oung.net/articles/PI_Results_SEI.pdf (accessed 09 January 2018).

Jones, T., Felps, W., Bigley, G. (2007), “Ethical Theory and Stakeholder-Related Deci-sions: The Role of Stakeholder Culture”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 137 – 155.

Kania, K. (2013), Doskonalenie zarządzania procesami biznesowymi w organizacji z wykorzystaniem modeli dojrzałości i technologii informacyjno-komunikacyjnych, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny, Katowice.

Kourula, A., Halme, M. (2008), “Types of Corporate Responsibility and Engagement with NGOs: An Exploration of Business and Societal Outcomes”, Corporate Gov-ernance, Vol. 8, Issue 4, pp. 557 – 570.

Lubin, D., Esty, D. (2010), “The Sustainability Imperative”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 42 – 50.

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. (2010), “Organizational Stages and Cultural Phases: A Critical Review and a Consolidative Model of Corporate Social Responsibility Development”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 20 – 38.

Marrewijk, M., Were, M. (2003), “Multiple Levels of Corporate Sustainability”, Jour-nal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44, Issue 2 – 3, pp. 107 – 119.

Mirvis, P., Googins, B. (2006), Stages of Corporate Citizenship: A Developmental Framework, A Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College Monograph, Boston.

Piskalski, G. (2015), Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu w polskich realiach: Teoria a praktyka, Fundacja CentrumCSR.PL, Warszawa.

PN-ISO 26000 (2012), Wytyczne dotyczące społecznej odpowiedzialności, Warszawa.

Poppelbub, J., Roglinger, M. (2011), “What Makes a Useful Maturity Model? A Frame-work of General Design Principles for Maturity Models and Its Demonstration in BPM”, paper presented at the 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 9 – 11 June 2011, European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS), University of Münster. Retrieved from http://fim-rc.de/Paperbibliothek/Veroeffentlicht/327/wi-327.pdf (accessed 09 January 2018).

Porter, M., Kramer, M. (2011), “Tworzenie wartości dla biznesu i społeczeństwa”, Harvard Business Review Polska, No. 5(99).

Rangan, K., Chase, L., Karim, S. (2012), “Why Every Company Needs a CSR Strategy and How to Build It”, HBS Working Paper No. 12 – 088, 5 April.

Rok, B. (2013), Podstawy odpowiedzialności społecznej w zarządzaniu, Poltext, Warszawa.

Ruggie, J. (2011), “Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 29, Issue 2, pp. 224 – 253.

Scherer, A., Palazzo, G. (2011), “The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and Its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48, Issue 4, pp. 899 – 931.

Waddock, S. (2006), “Building the Institutional Infrastructure for Corporate Social Responsibility”, Harvard University Working Paper No. 32, December.

Wood, S. (2012), “The Case for Leverage-Based Corporate Human Rights Responsibility”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 22, Issue 1, pp. 63 – 98.

Windsor, D. (2006), “Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Key Approaches”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, Issue 1, pp. 93 – 114.

Zadek, S. (2004), “The Path to Corporate Responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 12, pp. 125 – 132.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


p-ISSN 2392-2680
e-ISSN 2392-2699

Partnerzy platformy czasopism