An Examination of Manager Expertise in
Corporate Social Responsibility
A literature review of research in corporate social responsibility
and learning, expertise and context
Jeffrey D. Merrell
Department of Learning and Organizational Change
Northwestern University
August, 2006
Overview
Academic research which focuses specifically on the role of managers as actors in the
performance of socially responsible practices is limited. Much of the existing research in
the past 30 years focuses on theoretical discussion at the organizational level; empirical
research to validate the impact of social performance on corporate economic
performance and public image; and case studies of individual businesses or examples of
successful business/social enterprise relationships. The limited research base focusing
on managers is also noted by Norris and O’Dwyer (Norris & O'Dwyer, 2004) in their case
study examining the role of formal and informal management systems on social
performance decision making in a British retail firm. The authors note:
“…a general lack of research examining the systems which influence managerial
decision making in a socially responsive vein. This neglect of the potential role of
managers in promoting enhanced corporate social performance is somewhat
surprising…” (Norris & O'Dwyer, 2004)
The research review presented in this article is designed to establish a foundation upon
which to view success in corporate social performance as being affected by
organizational learning practices and how these practices affect individual (manager)
cognition. Therefore, this article includes reviews of theory and research in both
corporate social responsibility and in organizational learning and expert cognition.
Research Review: Corporate Social Responsibility
An examination of the past 30 years of literature on corporate social responsibility and
corporate social performance (CSR/CSP) shows a field that is continuing to evolve along
a variety of lines: theoretical discussion at the institutional and organizational levels;
empirical research to validate CSR/CSP impact on corporate economic performance and
public image; and case studies of individual businesses or examples of successful
business/social enterprise relationships. It is in fact this variety that one set of reviewers
points to as an indication that CSR/CSP is a “vibrant and developing” field (de Bakker,
Groenewegen, & den Hond, 2005). The following discussion is designed to help place
the current research effort within this landscape, with particular attention paid to the role
of managers as key actors in the performance of discretionary, socially-responsible
activity.
A central theme in the CSR/CSP literature is the attempt to define both social
responsibility (what is the social responsibility of business) and social performance (how
are business actions to be gauged) in a manner that provides coherence through
institutional, organizational and individual frames of reference. Carroll (1979) analyzed
the then-existing body of academic work and attempted to integrate the concepts of
social responsibility and performance by defining a conceptual model. The model
included four categories of responsibility (economic, legal, ethical and discretionary);
four levels of performance (reaction, defense, accommodation, proaction); and a
dimension to encompass specific social issues (e.g., environment, product safety, etc.).
Carroll offered the framework as a tool to assist both academics and management
practitioners in analyzing CSR/CSP issues. Wood (1991a,1991b) took a similar
Jeffrey D. Merrell August, 2006
Page 1
approach by reflecting on the distinctive themes and concepts in the CSR/CSP literature
and then offering an integrated model. Wood argued, for example, that Carroll’s
framework defined CSR/CSP domains but not the nature of responsibility or
performance. A more complete definition of corporate social performance should
encompass:
“…a business organization’s configuration of principles of social responsibility
processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs and observable
outcomes as they related to the firm’s societal relationships” (Wood, 1991a).
Wood’s resulting Corporate Social Performance Model addresses each of these issues
(Table 1) and is the basis of one of the most cited articles in the CSR/CSP literature (de
Bakker, Groenewegen, & den Hond, 2005).
Table 1 Corporate Social Performance Model (Wood, 1991a)
Principles of Corporate Social Responsibility
• Institutional principle: Legitimacy
• Organizational principle: Public Responsibility
• Individual principle: Managerial Discretion
Processes of Corporate Social Responsiveness
• Environmental assessment
• Stakeholder management
• Issues management
Outcomes of Corporate Behavior
• Social impacts
• Social programs
• Social policies
Wood’s Principle of Public Responsibility (at the organizational level) and Principle of
Managerial Discretion (at the individual level) are central to framing the context for the
research questions about managerial expertise that are explored in this article. These
principles state that organizations are responsible for “their primary and secondary areas
of involvement with society” and that managers are “moral actors…obliged to exercise
such discretion as is available to them, toward socially responsible outcomes.” (Wood,
1991a) The organizational principle establishes a concept of relevance in defining the
scope of an organization’s social responsibility. An automaker’s primary responsibilities
may include manufacturing safe vehicles or reducing pollution directly resulting from
manufacturing processes or product use. Secondary responsibilities might include
supporting safe driving programs – a social impact that can be viewed as relevant to the
automaker’s commercial purpose. Wood’s description of managerial discretion
humanizes the concept of social responsibility:
“A company’s social responsibilities are not met by some abstract organizational
actor; they are met by human actors who constantly make decisions and choices,
some big and some small, some minor and others of great consequence” (Wood,
1991a).
Thus, Wood establishes the basis for a situational relationship between managers and
their organizations: Managers exercise discretion within the context of an organization’s
Jeffrey D. Merrell August, 2006
Page 2
definition of public responsibility (which presumably also includes discretionary actions to
establish or change the organizational context).
Swanson (1995, 1999) further elaborates on the work of Wood and others by articulating
the two perspectives that create the core tension within business and society research:
the economic perspective (evolving largely from management research) vs. the dutyaligned perspective (evolving from business ethics research) (Swanson, 1995).
Swanson argues, first, that these two dominant perspectives lead invariably to trade-off
dilemmas; the economic perspective compels organizations to maximize economic goals
while the duty perspective involves costs that negatively impact those economic goals.
Secondly, Swanson proposes reorienting Wood’s CSP model to help bridge this tension,
in part, by focusing on decision making. Executive decision making contributes to social
performance to the extent that executives direct the organization toward economizing
(efficiently convert inputs to outputs) and ecologizing (adapting the linkages between
organizations and environment to sustain life). Executives, managers and employees
contribute to social performance to the extent that their decisions affect both negative
duty (i.e., avoiding actions which create harm) and positive duty (i.e., promoting actions
which increase social benefit) (Swanson, 1995).
The perspectives of Carroll, Wood and Swanson are central to the thinking in what is
classified as integrative theories by Garriga and Mele (2004). Additional theoretical
groupings include instrumental theories (achieving economic objectives through social
activities); political theories (responsible use of business power); and ethical theories
(the “right” thing to achieve a good society) (Garriga & Mele, 2004). Other streams of
work in the CSR/CSP literature include research focusing on organizational structure
and case study examinations of social performance in practice. Jones (1999), for
example, develops the idea that organizational structures set the conditions in which
socially responsible practices may emerge and concludes that smaller, closely held firms
may be in the optimal position to practice stakeholder management in a socially
responsible fashion. Among the case study work is an examination by Norris and
O’Dwyer (2004) of how both formal and informal management controls influence the
decision making of managers at a U.K. based retail firm. The authors focused on a firm
known for its CSR/CSP success (as evidenced by the firm consistently producing
audited reports of CSR/CSP performance) and conducted extensive interviews with 19
managers. The results (in many cases supported by the managers’ own words) indicate
that informal social and self control mechanisms are highly influential in motivating
socially responsible decision making, but the inability to effectively measure social
outcomes put social objectives at a disadvantage during times of conflict between
financial and social goals (Norris & O'Dwyer, 2004). The authors characterize this
conflict as a “tension” between formal management control systems (financial objectives)
and informal control systems (the strong culture of supporting socially responsible
decision making) – but not as a binary, winner-take-all trade-off between meeting both
financial and social objectives. They noted, in fact, that the focus on formal, financial
control systems resulting from difficult economic conditions had “not succeeded in
taming” many managers’ motivation for socially responsible decision-making. The strong
pro-social-responsibility culture was still evident (Norris & O'Dwyer, 2004).
Norris and O’Dwyer’s study exemplifies the type of research to which the current study is
intended to contribute: Applying case study research methods to understanding the link
between the discretionary activities of managers and the organizational context in which
they operate. Wood (1991a) and Swanson (1995) establish the theoretical framework for
Jeffrey D. Merrell August, 2006
Page 3
viewing managers and organizations as two distinct units of analysis, but leave
unanswered many questions regarding how managers and organizations influence one
another in the actual performance of socially responsible practices. The hypotheses
posed by the current study are intended to address one aspect of this research gap by
looking at managers’ discretionary social activity as a type of expertise that evolves from
individual and organizational learning practices.
Research Review: Learning, Expertise and Context
A review of the research on individual and organizational learning reveals an on-going
effort to understand the relationship between social engagement and individual
cognition. At the individual level, the emergence of constructivism and research into the
nature of individual expertise establish part of the framework used in this article. Social
learning theory, situated cognition and the work on communities-of-practice contribute to
building the framework for understanding learning from a person-in-environment
perspective. In both the individual and person-in-environment perspectives, “context”
emerges as an important theme; research and theory from environmental psychology
provides additional insight into defining elements of workplace context which can be
used as the basis for a research framework. The following section describes the
individual and person-in-environment concepts that were influential in developing the
conceptual model used for the research in this article.
Examining the theoretical evolution and influence of behaviorism, cognitivism and
constructivism on the practice of instructional design provides some insight into the
current state of thinking on individual learning and on understanding context as a
contributing factor (Bednar, 1992; Ertmer, 1993). Behaviorism evolved from research in
behavioral psychology (stimulus/response) and focuses on observable cause-and-effect
learning strategies. Its influence dominated the thinking of learning activity designers
until the emergence of cognitivist and constructivist alternatives in the 1980s, and this
influence is still visible today in such design tactics as task analysis and behavioral
objectives. Cognitivism added the dimension of an individual’s internal knowledge
structures to behaviorism’s focus on observable behaviors. A cognitive approach in
learning design is concerned with how a learner mentally structures, stores and retrieves
information. The ability of a learner to build higher-order learning strategies that work
across knowledge domains – metacognition – is also a key concept that evolves from
cognitivism. Constructivism is based on the principle that individuals create meaning
from their own unique experiences. It creates a bridge to cognitivism and behaviorism by
encompassing both activity (behavior) and knowledge as part of its scope, but
constructivism more firmly establishes the idea that situation and context are inseparable
from learning. Although constructivism and cognitivism may be the replacing
behaviorism as the predominant theories behind instructional design (Bednar, 1992), the
evolutionary history of the practice is clearly rooted in understanding behavior (actions),
thinking (cognition), and the relationships among behavior, thinking and the environment
(constructivism).
Additional insight into cognition emerges from research into the nature of expertise.
Expertise can be viewed as more of a relative term than an end-state; individuals who
are seen as “experts” have more expertise in a specific practice than do novices. This
novice/expert perspective provides value in helping devise a lens through which to begin
Jeffrey D. Merrell August, 2006
Page 4
viewing the differences between individuals in the actual practice of an activity (e.g.,
playing chess). Expertise is generally characterized as including deep domain
knowledge (conceptual, factual, procedural); heuristic strategies (“tricks of the trade” and
knowing when to apply them); and learning strategies (meta-cognition) (Collins, Brown,
& Newman, 1989; Glaser & Chi, 1988). Each of these attributes evolves through
repeated execution of real-world activities and reflection and results in some
restructuring of knowledge and beliefs that may be reflected in mental models and other
cognitive structures (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989; Glaser & Chi, 1988).
Several areas of work begin to build a bridge from the focus on the individual to a
broader perspective that includes social engagement and the environment in which
learning occurs. Bandura’s social cognitive theory and social learning theory (Bandura,
2001; Bandura & Wood, 1989) suggests that behavior, cognitive/personal factors and
environment form a three-part structure in which each element influences the other. One
application of this theory is in understanding how modeling is a legitimate form of
learning; individuals may use a variety of strategies to first observe “model performance”
and then incorporate it into their own thinking and behaviors (Bandura & Wood, 1989).
Situated cognition theory (Brown, Collins & Druid, 1989) suggests that knowledge is
tightly integrated with the activity, context and culture in which the knowledge is used.
This evokes two implications. First, individuals must recognize that what they know is in
fact situated in their own rich history of activities, context and culture. Second, an
individual’s ability to learn from an expert depends on knowing and doing -- being able to
“get inside” the context in which the expert knowledge exists. An application of situated
cognition is the concept of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989),
which focuses on how to acculturate learners in an area of practice through authentic
activities (similar to the idea of apprenticeships in the crafts).
This situated, person-in-environment viewpoint is further developed in research and
theory related to communities-of-practice, which first emerged in the work of Lave and
Wenger (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Communities-of-practice (CoP) defines
an informal organizational structure in which people learn, negotiate meaning and
acquire identity through participation in common activities. CoP theory builds upon the
idea that learning is socially constructed in the context of specific activities (practices)
and provides an alternative view to concepts which consider knowledge as something
abstract and disconnected from actual practice. A more useful framework, Lave and
Wenger argue, is to view learning as a social process where new community members
engage in “legitimate peripheral participation” as part of their journey to become core
community members (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Participants are not simply acquiring
explicit, expert knowledge about a practice but learn how to be full community members.
Wenger (1998) uses the case of an insurance company claims processing organization
to illustrate CoP dynamics. Claims processing is divided into different formal
(hierarchical) organizational structures, but there is a clear claims processing community
which transcends the formal structure and dictates work practices, social norms,
language and behaviors that directly influence the performance and development of the
organization.
This CoP-based view is further developed in the work of Brown and Duguid (1991,
2001), who embedded the concept more deeply into workplace analysis and connected
CoPs to innovation. Among the themes in their argument is that actual work practices
are indeed socially constructed by informal communities of practitioners; these practices
are more important to understand than the espoused practices (“office procedures”)
Jeffrey D. Merrell August, 2006
Page 5
defined by the organization; that organizations can be viewed as “communities of
communities;” and that innovation will emerge from understanding the non-standard
practices that emerge from these communities. Brown and Duguid also introduce the
idea of networks-of-practice – a more loosely connected structure which links CoPs to a
larger grouping of a common practice (i.e., accountants in one firm’s CoP are linked to
other accounting CoPs via a common profession). Such linkages could enable to flow of
some forms of knowledge between organizations, further fostering innovation. Although
Brown and Duguid acknowledged some reservations with using the “network”
terminology, the concept seemed to open the door to a more expansive use of CoPs in
later research. Lave and Wenger conceived of CoPs depending in large part on frequent
and intensive face-to-face communication and social interaction – suggesting co-location
as a requirement. Brown and Duguid acknowledged this view but also suggested
communities could be identified by a common culture associated with the knowledge of
a specific practice.
In considering this view of learning as a social, person-in-environment phenomenon, the
question of how to define an appropriate unit of analysis becomes problematic: To
exactly which factors in a rich, complex environment should researchers pay attention?
Asked another way: Is there a useful framework for defining context? One view of how to
answer this question emerges from ecological psychology, which developed in the
1950’s as an alternative perspective to the thinking offered by behaviorist theory and the
focus on laboratory experiments as the principle research strategy (Wicker, 2002).
Wicker (2002) suggests that individuals develop a schema which helps them make
sense of various behavior settings. What an individual perceives and understands about
a current behavior setting is conditioned by past experiences in the same settings. The
schema continues to develop over time as actions and events in the setting are
interpreted. Wicker also emphasizes the importance of time scale in considering the
nature of a behavior setting; a setting may appear relatively stable when observed in a
short time span but also show dynamic change when observed over a longer period. A
more comprehensive approach to considering context evolves from the work of H.C.
Clitheroe, Jr., Daniel Stokols and Mary Zmuidzinas (1998). The authors pay tribute to
Wicker and others in the theoretical and conceptual development of context as a factor
in understanding human behavior. But they also argue for a more standard approach to
terminology and application in an effort to establish a framework that is more useful in
explaining behavior in the “real world.” The authors’ attempt to define terminology
provides a perspective on the relationship of key concepts developed by environmental
psychology in its consideration of people-in-environment:
• “Environment” refers to the larger world that envelopes human behavior
• “Behavior setting” is a highly organized, consistent people-environment
interaction that occurs regularly at one or more specific locations
• “Situations” are sub-sets of behavior settings. They are less-structured peopleenvironment interactions that occur in a given place at a given period of time
(with definable beginnings and endings).
• “Context” refers to a specific set of personal, physical or social elements that
operate within an environment, behavior setting and situation that are selected by
a researcher or designer for analysis. This definition evolves from Stokols’
principles of contextual analysis, which propose that the relationships among
“focal variables” (those specific elements which directly affect behaviors within a
context) may be moderated by “contextual factors” in the surrounding
environment (Clitheroe et al., 1998). For example: Workgroup size and spatial
Jeffrey D. Merrell August, 2006
Page 6
density (focal variables) may affect the productivity of a team; the degree to
which the team can control physical features of their workspace (contextual
factor) may moderate the productivity affect.
From this foundation, the authors propose a model of context that incorporates personal,
physical and social elements as well as the idea of a “prompt,” and “outcome” and a time
span during which all of the processes unfold (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Context (From H.C. Clitheroe, Jr. et al)
Prompts initiate a behavioral response by an individual or group and may arise from a
wide variety of sources. The resulting behavioral processes may be guided by specific
goals or carried forward by less explicit purposes. In either case, the behavioral
processes are affected by personal, social and physical factors. Personal Factors
include such items as personality traits, interpersonal dynamics and communication
processes. Formal Social factors are the more stable relationships defined by such
elements as an organization’s operating structure or policies. Informal Social factors
include community, family, friends, etc. Physical Factors are natural or constructed
settings. The behavioral processes ultimately lead to an outcome. This may be a fully
developed and implemented response to the initial prompt or something more
intermediate or even unsuccessful. The authors also extend the definition of outcomes to
include possibilities outside of the narrow scope of the initial prompt; Reciprocal
Outcomes, for example, are defined as those which change the nature of the current
existing context.
Jeffrey D. Merrell August, 2006
Page 7
References
Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Bandura, A., Wood, R. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management.
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Bednar, A. C., D.; Duffy, T.; Perry, J. (1992). Theory into Practice: How do we link? In T.
J. Duffy, D. (Ed.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction (pp. 17-33).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Brown, J., Collins, A., Druid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities-ofPractice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovating.
Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 2(1),
40.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice
Perspective. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management
Sciences, 12(2), 198-213.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497.
Clitheroe Jr., H. C. S., Daniel; Zmuidzinas, Mary. (1998). Conceptualizing the Context of
Environment and Behavior. Environmental Psychology, 18, 103-112.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching
the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,
learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
de Bakker, F. G. A., Groenewegen, P., & den Hond, F. (2005). A Bibliometric Analysis of
30 Years of Research and Theory on Corporate Social Responsibility and
Corporate Social Performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283-317.
Ertmer, P., Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing
Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the
Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51-71.
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser & M. J. Farr
(Eds.), The Nature of Expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jones, M. T. (1999). The Institutional Determinants of Social Responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 20(2), 163-179.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
(2005 ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, G., & O'Dwyer, B. (2004). Motivating socially responsive decision making: the
operation of management controls in a socially responsive organisation. British
Accounting Review, 36(2), 173-196.
Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic Mental Models in Competitor Definition.
Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224.
Sharfman, M. (1996). The Construct Validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini Social
Performance Ratings Data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 287-296.
Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a Theoretical Problem by Reorienting the Corporate
Social Performance Model. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 43-64.
Jeffrey D. Merrell August, 2006
Page 8
Swanson, D. L. (1999). Toward an Integrative Theory of Business and Society: A
Research Strategy for Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management
Review, 24(3), 506-521.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (2004 ed.).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wicker, A. (2002). Ecological Psychology: Historical Context, Current Conception,
Prospective Directions. In R. C. Bechtel, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental
Psychology (pp. 114-126). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wood, D. J. (1991a). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of
Management Review, 16(4), 691.
Wood, D. J. (1991b). Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate
Social Performance. Journal of Management, 17(2), 383.
Jeffrey D. Merrell August, 2006
Page 9