Three characteristic problems in the measurement of corporate social performance (CSP) center around the need to measure three “metrics”: the metric of performance evaluation (M1), the metric of performance measurement (M2), and the metric of performance perception and belief (M3). The central issues in each metric are commitment, revelation, and belief, respectively. This article discusses each metric and provides sets of theoretical propositions under M2 and M3 describing behavior in those contexts. Some of the propositions inM2form an explicit partial theory (...) of factors affecting the likelihood of CSP measurement. Those under M3 are developed from more general ones in the theory of testaments. (shrink)

The concept of scientific field lacks a definition in a form allowing the distinction of whether a particular academic area of study is or is not a true scientific field. Starting with the classic definition by Whitley of a field as a “reputational work organization,” this essay extracts eleven explicit and implied features of a field from Whitley’s definition and discussion, extending his analysis. The article reviews Hambrick and Chen’s model of field formation as an “admittance-seeking social movement.” Hambrick and (...) Chen argue that strategic management followed that model with success, offering the SIM Division of the Academy of Management as an unsuccessful example. The article notes errors in their assessment of SIM, argues that Hambrick and Chen are really offering a model of what I term condensation and promulgation of a field and that their model cannot be used to determine whether a field exists. The article applies the extended Whitley model of a field to examine three candidate fields within SIM: corporate social responsibility (CSR)/corporate social performance (CSP), stakeholder theory, and corporate political activity (CPA). I conclude that none is technically a field, and considering as well the comments of three senior scholars who contributed to the symposium, the article discusses the potential trajectory of fields in SIM. (shrink)

A normative criterion identifying the conditions for a desirable corporate reputation, “reputational optimality,” or “reputational bliss,” is described, and a case developed for its utility and reasonableness as a criterion to apply to real world phenomena. The paper discusses some behavioral patterns under alternative moral positions taken by observers and the firm, critiques some alternative moral principles, and considers some dynamics of moving toward, defending and maintaining, and breaching or breaking reputational bliss.

In Sandra Waddock’s article “Taking Stock of SIM” in this journal, she identifies key issues in the work of the Social Issues in Management (SIM) Division of the Academy of Management. This article challenges her analysis of SIM scholarship and her arguments of what is necessary for the division to progress. Scholarship in SIM should emphasize two key streams: First, scholars in SIM should seek to develop a science of social forensics, design, and social repair—in essence, develop a method of (...) problem diagnosis, an approach to practical solution design, and a systematic understanding of the selection and implementation of social repair—in other words, seek to understand how to systematically troubleshoot and engineer solutions to fundamental issues in the business and society interface. The second stream, which informs the first, involves the development of original, core, transferable systematics that can “travel”—be the source of understanding-generating analysis—in other disciplines, including the topical regions of the Academy of Management. The article argues that laying claim to and developing true normative theory applicable across disciplines should be a distinctive identifier of work in SIM. The article concludes with an illustration of how systematics can be applied to address the literature’s failure to even seek to understand the logic underlying the standard ethical theories. These theories are properly seen as complements rather than substitutes. We need to ask and answer the “fundamental question of business ethics”: What should I do?.We suggest an approach labeled “integrative ethics,” employing ethical frames/injunctive formats, framed contexts for action, and the distribution of desires. (shrink)

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is about the moral purpose of business and its proper relationship to society. We map the logical structure of CSR—its canonical core—and identify the view of CSR that is most consistent with CSR as driven by moral purpose as Moral CSR (CSRM). The numerous perspectives of CSR, which we term CSR memes, are complements to CSRM. A meme is an idea or usage diffusing within communities. Moral norms and what we term normatively injunctive warrants are implicit (...) in many CSR memes but have received a relative lack of explicit and systematic attention. A norm is an accepted standard for behavior. A warrant is an authoritative or authorizing instruction for behavior. All CSR memes contain three elements—a corporate actor, a relation, and nonmoral normative warrants, which we term constructive warrants. We argue that any CSR meme should include a fourth element—moral normative (injunctive) warrants linking explicitly to moral reasoning. Through sorting key CSR memes by their epistemological and compositional characteristics, we reveal the paucity of explicit attention to injunctive warrants. We resort memes according to social gains or losses, which are the outcomes of societal demand for and business supply of CSR. This analysis yields two proposed improvements for CSR reasoning. The first is a clearer picture of variable use of the term CSR in extant research. The second is how scholars can incorporate more explicitly moral elements of CSR in future work. (shrink)

The study of reputation has often focused on the creation of good reputations rather than on the varied means by which reputations are modified, or shifted, and the factors affecting such shifts. This paper develops a theory of reputation shifting and identifies five basic reputational actions, the types of strategic responses that can be taken to manage reputations.