Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization

Abstract

Corporate citizenship (CC) has emerged as a prominent term in the management literature dealing with the social role of business. This paper critically examines the content of contemporary understandings of CC and locates them within the extant body of research dealing with business-society relations. Two conventional views of CC are catalogued-a limited view which largely equates CC with strategic philanthropy and an equivalent view which primarily conflates CC with CSR. Significant limits and redundancies are subsequently identified in these views, and the need for an extended theoretical conceptualization is highlighted. The main purpose of the paper is thus to realize a theoretically informed definition of CC that is descriptively robust and conceptually distinct from existing concepts in the literature. Specifically, the extended perspective on CC exposes the element of "citizenship" and conceptualizes CC as the administration of a bundle of individual citizenship rights-social, civil and political-conventionally granted and protected by governments. The implications of this view of CC for management theory and practice are suggested.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability in Scandinavia: An Overview

“…Given this approach, we could well include expressions like corporate citizenship (Carroll 1998;Matten and Crane 2005), business ethics (Bowie 1999;Beauchamp et al 2009;Crane and Matten 2007, stakeholder engagement (Freeman, 1984;Freeman et al 2010;Rhenman 1968), stewardship (Davis et al 1997), triple bottom line (Elkington 1999), and creating shared value (Porter and Kramer 2011) in our discussions. These expressions are examples of the catchall ''whatever'' label per The Economist.…”

Executive Compensation and Corporate Income Tax: A Question of Societal Equity

“…Matten and Crane (2005) defined corporate citizenship as the administration of a bundle of individual citizenship rights -social, civil, and political -conventionally granted and protected by governments.…”

How corporate social responsibility can effect on the consumers` attitude and behavior?: a conceptual study

“…In dreadfulness of the developing outcome of CSR, the writing still does not have its regularly acknowledged definition (Carroll, 1991;Garriga and Melé 2004). A few researchers (Matten and Crane, 2005;McIntosh et al, 2002) don't support Carroll's translation of CSR. They suggest that CSR ought to be past monetary and a lawful responsibility in light of the fact that each business must practice it.…”

“…Carroll (1979) characterizes the CSR as ''the social responsibility that a company include to economic, legal, ethical or elective requirements to culture. A few researchers (Matten and Crane, 2005;McIntosh et al, 2002) don't embrace understanding of CSR, contending that CSR ought to be past monetary and legitimate responsibility because each business must practice it. It has been drawn variably from alternate points of view, for example, social execution (Carroll, 1979), partner administration (Donaldson and Preston, 1995;Freeman, 1984), corporate administration (Freeman and Evan, 1990), business morals (Solomon, 1993), social contract (Farooq et al 2002), and corporate citizenship (Matten and Crane, 2005).…”

“…A few researchers (Matten and Crane, 2005;McIntosh et al, 2002) don't embrace understanding of CSR, contending that CSR ought to be past monetary and legitimate responsibility because each business must practice it. It has been drawn variably from alternate points of view, for example, social execution (Carroll, 1979), partner administration (Donaldson and Preston, 1995;Freeman, 1984), corporate administration (Freeman and Evan, 1990), business morals (Solomon, 1993), social contract (Farooq et al 2002), and corporate citizenship (Matten and Crane, 2005). While showing the difficulties connected with the idea of CSR, Henderson (2001) recommends that ''there is no strong and very much created agreement which gives a premise to activity.…”