Corporate social responsibility and the nonprofit sector: exploring the common ground

Abstract

Purpose Many nonprofit missions and the goals of socially responsible corporations are often found to refer to similar moral ideals related to improving the quality of human life. To take account of this salient fact, the paper aims to theorize the functional equivalence between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the nonprofit sector. Design/methodology/approach The argumentative strategy is to draw on the conceptual construct of the complexity-sustainability trade-off to develop a systems-theoretic interpretation of Roger Lohmann’s vision of the commons as an embodiment of collective voluntary action. Findings The emerging conceptual imagery is that of corporations and nonprofits as social systems continually seeking to sustain themselves by processing and codifying their societal environment which includes the commons in which Lohmann took a central interest. The possible functional equivalence of corporations and nonprofits is traced back to their struggling to develop and improve their responsiveness to the respective commons. Originality/value This argument is shown to cut across a range of issues in the modern nonprofit sector scholarship, while shedding new light on the ongoing debates on CSR and stakeholder theory.

Core charitable purpose and voluntary CSR activities in charity organisations: do they conflict?

“…Similar observations around the lack of research for NFPs were made by Plaisance (2021, p. 8) who noted that: "NPOs and CSR seem extremely close because the values and missions of these organisations already integrate a social and environmental vision". This reflects the view that CSR goals are embedded within the core purpose delivery of the charity (Waters and Ott, 2014) and Valentinov's (2021) perspective of the NFP sector and CSR as being functionally equivalent.…”

“…Whilst there is considerable discussion on whether CSR impacts profits or corporate financial performance, with sources arguing both in favour of a positive correlation (Orlitzky et al , 2003; Van Beurden and Gössling, 2008) and against (Fleming and Jones, 2013; Margolis and Walsh, 2001; Vogel, 2006), the salient point is that the desire to benefit financially is often a motivating factor, irrespective of whether the intended benefits are realised in practice.…”

Social entrepreneurs as institutional entrepreneurs: evidence from a comparative case study

“…More analytically, the comparisons between two less institutional fields -Baixo Alentejo and Phthiotisgave strong indications that institutional voids do not easily invite institutional entrepreneurship as it is often assumed (Child et al, 2007;Greenwood et al, 2002), but it is rather supportive institutions that foster social economy (Zahra and Wright, 2011). In addition, within these supportive institutional fields (such as Mühlviertel) the quality of institutional arrangements and the levels of decentralization seem more important than the institutional heterogeneity (Clemens and Cook, 1999).…”

“…In these narratives, social enterprises commonly embody commons (Lohmann, 2015), such as voluntary collective. The institutionalization of such activities seems to have limits (Valentinov, 2020). The same is true for innovation, which tends to lose its innovative spirit as it becomes institutionalized (Christmann et al, 2020, 499).…”

System or Process? A Meta-theoretical Reflection on the Nature of the Firm

“…In spite of the wide spectrum of the Luhmannian scholarship on the nature of formal organizations and managerial practice (Ahrne et al 2016;Cooren and Seidl 2019;Grothe-Hammer 2019;Hernes and Bakken 2003), the Luhmannian themes in the economic theory of the firm have received a relatively scant attention Plaza-Úbeda et al 2020;Valentinov and Thompson 2019;Thompson and Valentinov 2017;Valentinov 2020). Thompson and Valentinov's (2017) systems-theoretic assessment of the mainstream contract-based and competence-based theories of the firm has led them to conclude that these theories are paradigmatically based on the firm's complexity-reducing function.…”