 |
 |
Call for Papers Assessing Corporate Social Performance: Taking the Context into Account Conference jointly organized by EM Normandie Business School (France) and the University of Massachusetts Boston (USA) Paris (France) June 17-18, 2020 Over the past decades, companies' concern about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have evolved from simple questions about their responsibility to society and stakeholders to more sophisticated interrogations about the processes to set up, the outcomes of their efforts and the way to narrate them (Wang et al., 2016). This shift brought new challenges for companies, particularly regarding the assessment of Corporate Social Performance (CSP). Indeed, CSP -"the harms and benefits that result from a business organization's interactions with its larger environment" (Wood, 2010)- is difficult to assess, as it is a complex system (Mitnick, 2000). CSR dimensions -environmental, social and corporate governance issues- are qualitative and multidimensional by nature (Carroll, 1979, 1991) making general quantitative evaluations questionable (Crane et al., 2017). In addition, the existence of multiple stakeholders with sometimes competing goals makes it difficult to evaluate CSP, for what is good for one stakeholder can be bad for another (Wang et al., 2016; Wood, 2010). Assessing CSP is even more challenging as corporate responsibility is highly context-dependent (Aguinis, 2011). More specifically, the institutional environment and the industry in which a firm operates determine CSP processes and outcomes (Dabic et al, 2016). Assessing CSP therefore requires taking into account the variety of contexts. Capelle-Blancard and Petit (2017) show that it is not reasonable to give the same weights to the different CSP dimensions to all industries, as "firms exposed to CSR criticism are especially exposed to one single dimension". The authors show that, for example, oil companies are more criticized for their environmental damage than banks. Similarly, "CSR practices are more likely to be adopted and to become effective when they are embedded within particular institutional structures as opposed to others" (Ioannou and Serafeim, 2012). In other terms, the assessment of CSP processes and outcomes should seriously take into account the industry and the institutional contexts. We therefore call for papers on the context-specific assessment of CSP. This topic is all the more important in so far as the current environmental and social challenges triggered major protest movements worldwide that place particular pressure on shareholders and companies. Assessing CSP processes and outcomes represents therefore a crucial issue for practitioners, policy-makers and researchers. We welcome papers from a wide range of epistemological, conceptual and methodological backgrounds. We invite submissions that address, but are not restricted to, the following issues: - How does CSP assessment take into account the diversity of institutional contexts? - How does CSP assessment take into account the specific characteristics of industries, in terms of constraints or stakeholders? - How can a better assessment of CSP foster good practices and positive outcomes? - Are some industries more advanced than others in terms of CSP measurement or assessment? - How do business disciplines (accounting, finance, marketing, strategy etc.) matter for the assessment of CSP? - What are the advantages and drawbacks of qualitative/quantitative studies to take into account the context-specific dimensions of CSP? - How do global standards such as the UN Global Compact and ISO 26000 take into account industry specificities for the assessment of CSP? - CSP in investment management: measurement and integration of ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) factors. - ESG ratings, perspectives and directions. - Since the maritime industry is one of EM Normandy's priority areas of research, proposals in this area are welcome. References Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: doing good and doing well, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, Vol. 3, 855-879. Capelle-Blancard, G. & Petit, A. (2017). The weighting of CSR dimensions: One size does not fit all. Business & Society, 56(6), 919-943. Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. Crane, A., Henriques, I., Husted, B. W., & Matten, D. (2017). Measuring corporate social responsibility and impact: Enhancing quantitative research design and methods in business and society research. Business & Society, 56(6), 787-795. Dabic, M., Colovic, A., Lamotte, O., Painter-Morland, M. & Brozovic, S. (2016). Industry-specific CSR: Analysis of 20 years of research. European Business Review, 28(3), 250-273. Halbritter, G. & Dorfleitner, G. (2015). The wages of social responsibility-where are they? A critical review of ESG investing. Review of Financial Economics, 26, 25-35. Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 834-864. Mitnick, B.M. (2000). Commitment, revelation, and the testaments of belief: the metrics of measurement of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 419-465. van Duuren, E., Plantinga, A. & Scholtens, B. (2016). ESG integration and the investment management process: Fundamental investing reinvented. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 525-533. Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R. & George, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 534-544. Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50-84. Format and deadlines Submissions should be short papers (3-5,000 words) outlining the research question, conceptual background, methods and elements of results of the empirical study if it has been conducted (partly or completely). Full papers will be considered as well. Papers should be submitted to Antonia Bonifacio ([log in to unmask]) by March 1st, 2020. Decisions and feedbacks will be communicated by March 15, 2020. For more information about the conference: https://www.em-normandie.com/en/conference-umass-em-normandie-assessing-corporate-social-performance Associated special issue The best papers will be submitted for consideration to a special issue in Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management that will be published in 2021. *** Olivier Lamotte, PhD Associate Dean of Faculty Professor EM Normandie Business School (France) https://www.em-normandie.com/en ____ AIB-L is brought to you by the Academy of International Business. For information: http://aib.msu.edu/community/aib-l.asp To post message: [log in to unmask] For assistance: [log in to unmask] AIB-L is a moderated list.