Corporate Social Performance Disoriented: Saving the Lost Paradigm?

124 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Creating shared value: A systematic review, synthesis and integrative perspective (2021, background): “Yet the third point of concern (conceptual clarification) is still not addressed, even though scholars have argued that not only CSV, but CSR and strategic CSR too lack conceptual clarification (Dembek et al., 2016; Gond & Crane, 2010; van Oosterhout & Heugens, 2008; Vishwanathan et al., 2020).”
The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review (2017, background): “Taking stock of the various dimensions of the CSR concept already operationalized indicates that microlevel CSR studies need to go further and theorize, from the bottom up, a unified concept that reflects what is actually being measured in CSR studies (Gond & Crane, 2010).”
Corporate Social Performance and Firm Performance: Comparative Study among Developed and Emerging Market Firms (2019, background): “CSP is the outcome of implementing CSR activities, which was related to the firm’s relationships with stakeholders [38,39].”
The government of self-regulation: on the comparative dynamics of corporate social responsibility (2011, background): “…as an homogeneous entity, arguably CSR is a complex organizational and institutional phenomenon that encompasses several dimensions (Crouch, 2006; Gond & Crane, 2010) that are not all susceptible to being shaped in the same manner by the government or the national governance systems (Campbell,…”