Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sarkar, Soumodip
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Searcy, Cory
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10174/20602
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.157
Resumo: Despite its increasing relevance, corporate social responsibility (CSR) remains hobbled by problems, variously charged as being chameleon, vacuous or an utterly meaningless concept. One reason is the absence of an agreed upon normative basis underpinning CSR. This is in large part due to the concept lacking a universally accepted definition. This paper explores how the concept of CSR has evolved over time drawing from 110 definitions of the construct. Using co-word analysis of definitions from 1953 to 2014, the study maps how the structure of the definitions has evolved during the field's historical development. The research uncovers the key terms underpinning the phenomenon, the centrality of these terms as well as mapping their interrelationships and evolution. The findings suggest that, despite the profusion and definitional heterogeneity over the six decades of the development of the field, there are six recurrent, enduring dimensions that underpin the CSR concept. These dimensions are economic, social, ethical, stakeholders, sustainability and voluntary. This paper makes several contributions to the academic literature. The systematic, quantitative analysis of definitions brings an objectivity that previous qualitative bibliometric analyses of CSR have lacked. The time period selected is substantially longer than previous analyses and captures the complete historical evolution of the concept. Moreover, the analysis provides the basis for the development of a new, comprehensive, yet concise, definition of CSR that captures all six of the recurring dimensions underpinning the concept.
id RCAP_d0c647a06815a8beeb9c40f703311f4d
oai_identifier_str oai:dspace.uevora.pt:10174/20602
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.Corporate social responsibilitySocial network analysisCo-word analysisDespite its increasing relevance, corporate social responsibility (CSR) remains hobbled by problems, variously charged as being chameleon, vacuous or an utterly meaningless concept. One reason is the absence of an agreed upon normative basis underpinning CSR. This is in large part due to the concept lacking a universally accepted definition. This paper explores how the concept of CSR has evolved over time drawing from 110 definitions of the construct. Using co-word analysis of definitions from 1953 to 2014, the study maps how the structure of the definitions has evolved during the field's historical development. The research uncovers the key terms underpinning the phenomenon, the centrality of these terms as well as mapping their interrelationships and evolution. The findings suggest that, despite the profusion and definitional heterogeneity over the six decades of the development of the field, there are six recurrent, enduring dimensions that underpin the CSR concept. These dimensions are economic, social, ethical, stakeholders, sustainability and voluntary. This paper makes several contributions to the academic literature. The systematic, quantitative analysis of definitions brings an objectivity that previous qualitative bibliometric analyses of CSR have lacked. The time period selected is substantially longer than previous analyses and captures the complete historical evolution of the concept. Moreover, the analysis provides the basis for the development of a new, comprehensive, yet concise, definition of CSR that captures all six of the recurring dimensions underpinning the concept.Elsevier2017-02-03T16:11:06Z2017-02-032016-11-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://hdl.handle.net/10174/20602http://hdl.handle.net/10174/20602https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.157enghttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616308447ssarkar@uevora.ptcory.searcy@ryerson.ca256Sarkar, SoumodipSearcy, Coryinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-01-03T19:10:36Zoai:dspace.uevora.pt:10174/20602Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T01:12:02.085458Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.
title Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.
spellingShingle Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.
Sarkar, Soumodip
Corporate social responsibility
Social network analysis
Co-word analysis
title_short Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.
title_full Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.
title_fullStr Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.
title_full_unstemmed Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.
title_sort Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions.
author Sarkar, Soumodip
author_facet Sarkar, Soumodip
Searcy, Cory
author_role author
author2 Searcy, Cory
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Sarkar, Soumodip
Searcy, Cory
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Corporate social responsibility
Social network analysis
Co-word analysis
topic Corporate social responsibility
Social network analysis
Co-word analysis
description Despite its increasing relevance, corporate social responsibility (CSR) remains hobbled by problems, variously charged as being chameleon, vacuous or an utterly meaningless concept. One reason is the absence of an agreed upon normative basis underpinning CSR. This is in large part due to the concept lacking a universally accepted definition. This paper explores how the concept of CSR has evolved over time drawing from 110 definitions of the construct. Using co-word analysis of definitions from 1953 to 2014, the study maps how the structure of the definitions has evolved during the field's historical development. The research uncovers the key terms underpinning the phenomenon, the centrality of these terms as well as mapping their interrelationships and evolution. The findings suggest that, despite the profusion and definitional heterogeneity over the six decades of the development of the field, there are six recurrent, enduring dimensions that underpin the CSR concept. These dimensions are economic, social, ethical, stakeholders, sustainability and voluntary. This paper makes several contributions to the academic literature. The systematic, quantitative analysis of definitions brings an objectivity that previous qualitative bibliometric analyses of CSR have lacked. The time period selected is substantially longer than previous analyses and captures the complete historical evolution of the concept. Moreover, the analysis provides the basis for the development of a new, comprehensive, yet concise, definition of CSR that captures all six of the recurring dimensions underpinning the concept.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-11-01T00:00:00Z
2017-02-03T16:11:06Z
2017-02-03
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10174/20602
http://hdl.handle.net/10174/20602
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.157
url http://hdl.handle.net/10174/20602
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.157
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616308447
ssarkar@uevora.pt
cory.searcy@ryerson.ca
256
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799136602447937536