Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

How do organizations learn from their external stakeholders in the context of corporate responsibility? : a systematic review

By Rajiv Maher

Abstract

In the past few decades private firms have increasingly been scrutinized by external stakeholders such as civil society organizations, local communities and government with regards to their corporate responsibilities towards society and the environment. Firms have been challenged with meeting these rising societal expectations. The private sector has responded by creating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) departments and entering into dialogue with some of their staunchest critics from civil society in search of finding more responsible ways of operating. The main challenge being proposed to the private sector by civil society, practitioners and academics is that they embed CSR into their organizational cultures and way of working. Organizational learning theories have been established for several decades unlike the concept of CSR which is relatively immature in academia. Organizational learning in many ways requires firm members to reconsider the current modes of working, acquire new knowledge and then create the necessary changes within the organization to enhance competitiveness. In many ways organizational learning is about embedding new concepts of working throughout the organization. Therefore in this systematic literature review I aim to bridge both CSR/Stakeholder and organizational learning domains and pose the following questions of why, how and what do organizations learn from their external stakeholders in the context of CSR. It can be argued that organizational learning concepts can be appropriately applied for understanding how firms interact with and learn from their external stakeholders. By applying organizational learning theories it is possible to see that despite the relatively few empirical studies we can argue firms learn in one of two ways: in a prudent, incremental and risk manner or as the consequence of a crisis, and if so their learning is deeper and more likely to be embedded into the organizational culture

Publisher: Cranfield University
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:1826/6841
Provided by: Cranfield CERES

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2005). A New Approach to CSR: Company Stakeholder Responsibility”, SSRN doi
  2. (2004). Behind the Mask. The Real Face of Corporate Social Responsibility Christian Aid Phillips. R, Freeman.E, Wicks, A What Stakeholder Theory is not,
  3. (2009). Building corporate social responsibility into strategy”, doi
  4. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research’, doi
  5. (2006). Cohesion or confusion? Towards a typology for organizational learning research” doi
  6. (2002). Communities of Practice the Organizational Frontier” Harvard Business Review, January-February
  7. (2005). Company Learning about Corporate Social Responsibility‟, Business Strategy and the Environment, doi
  8. (2004). Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion’, doi
  9. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking, doi
  10. (2000). Do firms learns to create value? The case of alliance Strat. doi
  11. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance”. doi
  12. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination” Academy of Management Executive, doi
  13. (2004). Experiential Learning Processes of Exploitation and Exploration Within and Between Organizations: An Empirical Study of Product Development’, doi
  14. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”. doi
  15. (2001). Getting engaged: business-NGO relations in sustainable development. doi
  16. (2010). Global Reporting Initiative, www.globalreporting.org (Accessed 30th
  17. (2007). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions’’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. doi
  18. (2010). How to Change a Culture: Lessons From NUMMI. MIT Sloan Management Review,
  19. (2008). Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective” doi
  20. (2007). Organizational Learning to Manage Sustainable
  21. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures” doi
  22. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures" doi
  23. (2009). Putting a Stake in Stakeholder Theory” doi
  24. (2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: changing relationships between companies and NGOs” Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 17, doi
  25. (2007). Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook for Companies Doing Business in Emerging Markets” Accessed on 26th May,
  26. (2006). Stakeholder Power and Organizational Learning in doi
  27. (2002). Sustainability focused organizational learning: recent experiences and new challenges”, doi
  28. (2008). The Practice of Stakeholder Dialogue between Multinationals and NGOs” doi
  29. (2004). The Stakeholder Approach Revisited", Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-
  30. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts”. doi
  31. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development’, doi
  32. (2004). When in Rome …Moral Maturity and Ethics for International Economic Organizations”, doi
  33. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience corporate performance and CEO values” doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.