ARTICULO

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture

Brendan O’Dwyer
Article information:
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 12:02 14 October 2014 (PT)
To cite this document:

Brendan O’Dwyer, (2003),"Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture",
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 523 - 557
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513570310492290
Downloaded on: 14 October 2014, At: 12:02 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 101 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 24387 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lance Moir, (2001),"What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?", Corporate Governance: The
international journal of business in society, Vol. 1 Iss 2 pp. 16-22
Brendan O’Dwyer, (2002),"Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: An Irish story",
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 406-436
Craig Deegan, (2002),"Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a
theoretical foundation", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 282-311
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 465057 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
Conceptions of corporate Conceptions of

corporate social
social responsibility: the responsibility
nature of managerial capture

523
Brendan O'Dwyer
Department of Accountancy, Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Received 3 December
Business, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland 2001
Revised 23 July 2002
Keywords Corporate ventures, Social responsibility, Ireland, Managers, Perspectives, Accepted 11 October
Social accounting 2002
Abstract Furnishes a narrative reflecting an in-depth examination of managerial conceptions
of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the Irish context. The narrative locates itself within the
debate surrounding the extent to which corporate management may capture social accountants'
efforts to promote a broad society-centred conception of CSR. Three key findings emerge from the
narrative. First, there is evidence of a tendency for managers to interpret CSR in a constricted
fashion consistent with corporate goals of shareholder wealth maximisation. Second, pockets of
robust resistance to and defences of this narrow conception do, however, also emerge in the
narrative. Third, the complexity of conceiving of a clear meaning for CSR, particularly for those
exposed to the structural pressures encountered by these managers, is apparent. This is evident in
the initial, somewhat contradictory, nature of many of the conceptions analysed. Reflects on these
findings and considers their broad implications for social accountants' attempts to promote
greater society centred corporate accountability in Ireland.
Introduction
This paper furnishes a narrative reflecting an in-depth examination of
conceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) among a group of 29 senior
executives employed by Irish public limited companies (plcs). It is located within
the debate surrounding the extent to which corporate management may attempt
to capture and control social accountants' efforts to promote a broad society-
centred conception of CSR (see Adams and Harte, 2000; Bebbington, 1997; Gray,
2002; Gray et al., 1987, 1996, 1997; Larrinaga-Gonzalez and Bebbington, 2001;
Larrinaga-Gonzalez et al., 2001; Mathews, 1993; O' Dwyer, 2001; Owen et al.,
1997). Consequently, the paper explores the level of resistance (Gray, 2002)
social accountants may encounter in their efforts to promote improved corporate
social accountability in a context where, despite recent evidence of widespread
The author is extremely grateful for the helpful comments of Jan Bebbington, Mary Canning,
Barbara Flood, Hugh McBride, Tony McMurtrie, Dave Owen, Rob Gray and Jeffrey Unerman
on earlier drafts of this paper. The constructive comments of an anonymous reviewer for the
3rd APIRA Conference at the University of Adelaide and the two anonymous reviewers for
AAAJ also helped improve the final manuscript immensely. The comments of participants at
the 3rd APIRA Conference at the University of Adelaide in July 2001 and at the Corporate Social Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal
Responsibility and Environmental Management Conference at the University of Leeds in July Vol. 16 No. 4, 2003
2002 are also appreciated. The author would like warmly to acknowledge the financial pp. 523-557
# MCB UP Limited
assistance of The Irish Accountancy Educational Trust and the Dublin City University 0951-3574
Business School Research Committee. DOI 10.1108/09513570310492290
AAAJ concern with the social responsibilities of business (O'Dwyer, 2002), discourse
16,4 examining the nature of CSR has been notable primarily for its absence (Hoven
Stohs and Brannick, 1996, 1999; Murphy, 1994, 1995).
Social accounting researchers argue that their critical engagement with
economic interests can assist in liberating and empowering the wider society
through extending the accountability and transparency of organisations
524
(Bebbington, 1997; Gray, 2000, 2001; Gray et al., 1996, 1997; Owen et al., 1997,
2001)[1]. Within a broad stakeholder accountability framework, engagement
encompasses an attempt to change or reform existing business (accounting)
practices, especially those which conflict with the interests of the wider society
and overly privilege market forces (Gray, 2002)[2]. Engagement is therefore
focused on demanding greater responsibilities from corporations as well as
accounts of those responsibilities (Bebbington, 1997) and aims actively to
encourage, support and influence the creation of new, more transparent, forms
of accounting (Gray, 2002). The core motives driving this engagement process
include, inter alia:
. moral outrage;
. a deep rooted sense of justice;
. decency;
. a desire to serve the public interest properly and promote empowerment;
. a need for change; and
. a sense of real social responsibility (Bebbington, 1997; Gray, 2002; Gray
et al., 1996; Owen et al., 1997).
Underpinning these motives is an implicit conception of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) that focuses on an organisation's duty or obligation to act
in a socially responsible manner largely irrespective of narrow economic
considerations.
Social accountants' concern to engage with business interests has, however,
led to trenchant accusations that engagement merely enables corporate
management to capture and control the potentially radical or liberating aspects
of their objectives (Puxty, 1986, 1991; Tinker et al., 1991). This process is often
termed ``managerial capture'' (Owen et al., 1997, 2000). The term ``managerial
capture'' is used in this paper to refer to the means by which corporations,
through the actions of their management, take control of the debate over what
CSR involves by attempting to outline their own definition which is primarily
concerned with pursuing corporate goals of shareholder wealth maximisation
(Bebbington, 1997; Owen et al., 1997, 2000; Power, 1991). For example, it has
been claimed that corporations may subtly dismiss the broad focus on
obligations and duties implicit in social accountants' CSR conception by
`àppropriat[ing] [social] issues and translating them into [their] own economic
and risk based language'' (Power, 1991, p. 39). The act of engaging with
corporate management is accused of enabling managers to demonstrate an
open attitude to CSR (by selectively choosing elements to suit business Conceptions of
interests) as a way of demonstrating that they are listening to criticism, thereby corporate social
further legitimising the status quo and, in effect, resisting any desired change responsibility
(Bebbington, 1997; Owen et al., 1997; Puxty, 1986, 1991; Tinker et al., 1991).
The interview evidence underpinning the narrative presented in this paper
emanates from a context where societal suspicion of business responsibilities
525
has reached an all time high. For example, around the time the evidence was
gathered, media accounts of controversial business practices, alleged payments
of abundant sums of money by well-known businessmen to politicians
(including a former Prime Minister), and widespread tax evasion by leading
business people and companies, had fuelled increased scepticism of the
business sector from many quarters (Bougen et al., 1999; The Irish Times, 1998,
1999). This was occurring at a time when Ireland was in the midst of
tremendous economic and social change evidenced by soaring economic
growth levels (Gardiner, 1999; Sweeney, 1998) and detailed and critical public
scrutiny of previously revered institutions such as the Catholic Church (Nic
Ghiolla Phadraig, 1995; Sweeney, 1998). Furthermore, increasing distrust of
elements of the business sector (The Economist, 1999; O'Toole, 1999) threw into
sharp relief an historical lack of attention to, and discussion of, CSR in Ireland
(Alderson and Kakabadse, 1994; Hoven Stohs and Brannick, 1996, 1999;
Murphy, 1994, 1995; O' Dwyer, 2002).
This paper makes two key contributions to the social accounting and CSR
literatures. First, it empirically informs the debate surrounding the potential for
social accountants' engagement to transform business (accounting) practice for
the benefit of the wider society, thereby representing a direct response to
Gray's (2002) desire for more accounts of field work in the social accounting
literature. Second, unlike recent accounts of field work in this literature, this
paper examines the responsibility dimension of the social (stakeholder)
accountability framework commonly used to guide and provide theoretical
coherence to social accountants' research (see Gray, 2002; Gray et al., 1987,
1988, 1996, 1997). Recent field based social accounting research has examined
managerial perspectives in order to, inter alia, understand the internal
processes and/ or motives driving stakeholder accountability mechanisms such
as corporate social and ethical reporting (Adams 1999, 2000, 2002, O'Dwyer,
2002) as well as the potential for organisational change brought about by the
implementation of accountability mechanisms (such as environmental
accounting) (Larrinaga-Gonzalez and Bebbington, 2001; Larrinaga-Gonzalez
et al., 2001). This work has primarily focused on understanding the impact of
and organisational motives for social accounting mechanisms. However,
stakeholder accountability, arises only `ìf an organisation has a social
responsibility ± otherwise there is no [stakeholder] accountability to discharge''
(Gray et al., 1996, p. 56, emphasis in original). Hence, while this paper advances
the recent work using perspectives from within organisations to investigate the
potential for social accounting mechanisms to instigate organisational change,
thereby resisting managerial capture, it does so by focusing attention on the oft
AAAJ neglected corporate social responsibility dimension of the stakeholder
16,4 accountability framework espoused by social accountants.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The following section
locates social accountants' society centred CSR conception within the wider
``business and society'' literature[3] and discusses further how this conception
risks managerial capture. An outline of the research method employed is then
526
furnished. This precedes a detailed narrative examining the managerial

conceptions of CSR. This narrative is clustered around an analytical theme
focused on the potential for managerial capture inherent in the perspectives.
The final section discusses the findings embedded in this narrative and
considers their implications for social accountants' broad objectives.
Social accountants' conception of corporate social responsibility

Exploring the nature of social accountants' CSR conception
This paper examines conceptions of CSR and considers their implications for
social accountants' efforts to seek greater corporate accountability. Hence, this
section briefly examines the nature of social accountants' conception of CSR by
locating it within the ``business and society'' literature examining CSR. This
conception fuses a normative concern with fulfilling obligations and duties to
the wider society (termed corporate social responsibility (CSR1)) with a
pragmatic focus on enabling corporations to become more socially responsive
(termed corporate social responsiveness (CSR2)). Accusations of managerial
capture emphasise the likelihood of engagement causing the displacement of
CSR1 by CSR2, thereby primarily pushing corporate as opposed to societal
objectives. The nature of this form of capture and social accountants' attempts
to resist it are discussed in order to introduce the lens through which the
subsequent interview evidence is analysed.
Embracing corporate social responsibility (CSR1). As already pointed out,
social accountants are motivated by a concern for, inter alia, human rights and
social justice. Implicit in these motivations is a perspective which considers
``business . . . [a]s an activity embedded in the larger society with an obligation
to the common good of that society'' (Solomon, 1992, cited in Shepard et al.,
1997, p. 1006, emphasis added). This normative focus on obligations and duties
reflects substantial elements of the initial discussions of CSR in the ``business
and society'' literature. Here, a conception of CSR (denoted CSR1) was
popularised using a prescriptive, philosophical approach (Preston, 1975) aimed
at defining CSR1 in order to, inter alia, exhort corporations to voluntarily
exhibit greater responsibility and accountability to the wider society (see
Carroll, 1999; Davis, 1973; Jones, 1980; Steiner, 1975). For example, Jones (1980,
pp. 59-60, emphasis added, see also Bowen, 1953; Bucholz, 1991; Frederick,
1994) defined CSR1 as ``the notion that corporations have an obligation to
constituent groups in society other than [share]holders and beyond that
prescribed by law or union contract'' and acknowledged that ``business and
society [we]re interwoven rather than distinct entities'' (Wood, 1991a, p. 695).
As with social accountants, a concern for values, social justice, and human Conceptions of
rights is prominent, if not prevalent, in the CSR1 conception. However, CSR1's corporate social
broad emphasis on obligations (Mitnick, 1995) and notions of a social contract responsibility
between business and society (Gray et al., 1988; Wartick and Cochran, 1985)
was often deemed overly vague and ambiguous (Clarkson, 1995; Jones, 1996;
McGee, 1998), with Votaw (1972, p. 11) claiming it came to mean ``something,
527
but not always the same thing to everybody''. Through their engagement with
practice, social accountants attempt to move beyond this purported ambiguity.
While remaining true to the obligation/duty focused elements of CSR1, they
attempt to add a pragmatic focus to these normative concerns. They strive for
this by promoting engagement with business interests in order to exhort
changes aimed at empowering broad sets of (primarily non-financial)
stakeholders in the name of democratic accountability (Owen et al., 1997, 2000,
2001; Owen and Swift, 2001).
Embracing corporate social responsiveness (CSR2) ± social accountants'
facilitation of managerial capture? Through engaging with business, social
accountants aim to assist business in operationalising the ostensibly vague
CSR1 conception. Business is exhorted to become socially responsive. This
focus reflects elements of a phase in the ``business and society'' literature where
discussions of CSR1 were supplanted by an emphasis on what was termed,
corporate social responsiveness (denoted CSR2). CSR2 abandoned the
conceptual emphasis in CSR1 in favour of an operational (CSR2) focus and
involved `àn effort to treat as a management issue one which had been
predominantly treated as a social and/or ethical issue'' (Ackerman and Bauer,
1976, p. vii). CSR2 focuses on what is ``pragmatic'', thereby according with
social accountants' pragmatic approach to CSR. However, the core concern in
CSR2 is with society's impact on business rather than business's impact on
society. Within a CSR2 conception of CSR, it is business which decides on the
level of its social response and economic issues take clear precedence over
social issues (Frederick, 1986; Sethi, 1979). CSR2 therefore downplays CSR1's
emphasis on obligations, values, human rights and social justice, issues which
fuel social accountants' motives (and are implicit in most CSR1 conceptions), by
concentrating primarily on how corporations can neutralise societal concerns
using responsive postures (Ackerman and Bauer, 1976; Frederick, 1987, 1994;
Litz, 1996; Post, 1978; Preston and Post, 1975).
Through their attempts at engagement and their pragmatic focus, social
accountants have, however, been accused of facilitating this appropriation of
the CSR concept by business where CSR1 is displaced by CSR2 rather than
both being viewed as complementary concepts (see Wartick and Cochran, 1985;
Wood, 1991a). Engagement is thereby accused of enabling business to
operationalise CSR in a CSR2 vein, thereby veering little from ``business as
usual''. Consequently, engagement is deemed to risk managerial capture
leading to social accountants unintentionally becoming `à kind of apologia for
the status quo'' (Freeman and Gilbert, 1992, p. 12, emphasis in original).
AAAJ If managerial capture of the debate over the meaning of CSR transpires, an
16,4 emphasis on broad duties or obligations owed to society and a core concern
for social justice (CSR1) is displaced by narrower, business-centred
conceptions (such as CSR2). CSR becomes manageable and any tension
between economic and society-centred goals evaporates, with business
picking and choosing the social demands it will respond to (Frederick, 1986)
528
and thereby deciding on its own, severely restricted, meaning for CSR
(Frederick, 1994). For social accountants, conceptions of CSR which place the
concerns of the wider society at their core have liberating or empowering
potential (for the wider society) if adherence to them leads to the wider
society's needs being reflected in more responsible corporate activity.
Managerial capture of broad, society-centred CSR conceptions renders this
liberating or empowering potential redundant.
Social accountants are well aware of concerns regarding managerial
capture (see Puxty, 1986, 1991; Tinker et al., 1991) and have felt compelled
to defiantly defend their research agenda (see Gray, 2002; Owen et al., 1997).
Bebbington (1997) accepts the danger that their engagement with practice
(with particular reference to environmental accounting) may be captured
by the powerful interests with which they engage. However, while
acknowledging the risks and evidence of capture, Bebbington (1997) claims
it is not total. She notes that Gray et al. (1995) have produced evidence to
suggest that at the individual and personal level resistance to capture is
evident, given that some managers recognise the need for change to societal
structures brought about by, for example, the environmental agenda. This
indicates that the seeds for change (encompassing resistance to capture) as
opposed to capture may exist, at least to some extent, in the corporate
context and offer a potential way forward. Moreover, Gray (2002, p. 25)
maintains that the extent to which social accounting developments will be
captured is partially dependent on the willingness of social accountants to
``refuse to yield to corporate autonomy without a fight''. He concedes it is
inevitable that many developments will be captured to some degree but to
argue that this is a reason for dis-engagement is, according to Gray, similar
to ``fiddling while Rome burns ± and `Rome' is certainly burning'' (Gray,
2002, p. 701).
By illuminating in-depth managerial conceptions of CSR, this paper
examines the nature and extent of the potential managerial capture of social
accountants' society-centred CSR conception among a specific group of Irish
senior executives. Consequently, it illustrates the extent of the ``fight'' social
accountants may have on their hands among these executives. Prior to
investigating these conceptions, the following section considers the research
method employed in the study.
Research method
The evidence in this study was collected using semi-structured, in-depth
personal interviews with 29 senior executives in 27 Irish plcs between October
and December 1997[4]. These interviews had as their primary objective the Conceptions of
attainment of detailed insights into the managers' perceptions of CSR[5]. The corporate social
perspectives obtained were used to develop an understanding of how these responsibility
managers conceived of CSR, why they held these conceptions and what
implications they have for social accountants' attempts to engage with and
transform business practice in the interests of the wider society. A small
529
number of broad, open-ended questions guided the interviews, which were

conducted by this researcher on the interviewees' company premises (with
three exceptions)[6]. The open-ended nature of the questions was designed to
invite the interviewees to participate in a loosely guided conversation (Maykut
and Morehouse, 1994; Smith, 1972; Taylor and Bogdan, 1984). The interviews
were conducted by the author and ranged from 45 minutes to one and a half
hours in duration.
Interviewee profile
Senior executives in Irish plcs covering all of the major company
sectors quoted on the Irish Stock Exchange were selected for interviews (see
Table I).
This was primarily as they all had a significant input into the formulation of
corporate strategy and could be expected to have a broad perspective on their
organisations' operations, thereby enabling them to address questions
investigating perceptions of CSR. Letters were initially sent to 45 senior
executives requesting interviews. These letters included a brief curriculum
vitae of the researcher along with a broad outline of the research being
undertaken and the issues to be addressed. This enabled each interviewee to
consider these issues prior to their interview and to seek clarification, if
required[7]. Those who were unable to accommodate an interview claimed they
found a lack of time to be the primary obstacle given their senior management
positions. There was no direct evidence of any potential interviewee being
resistant to nature of the research being undertaken.
Role of interviewee
Industry sector (IS) IS code FD C CEO S M Total
Banking and finance F 5 0 1 1 2 9

Manufacturing/processing M 2 1 0 1 1 5
Retail and leisure R 3 0 0 1 0 4
Exploration/extractive E 2 0 2 0 0 4
Printing P 1 1 0 2 0 4
Food and drink FD 1 1 0 0 0 2
Miscellaneous O 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 14 4 3 5 3 29
Notes: FD refers to finance director or equivalent; C refers to chairperson or equivalent; Table I.
CEO refers to chief executive officer; S refers to company secretary; M refers to general Interviewees' role and
manager. A total of 26 males and three females were interviewed industry sector
AAAJ Conducting the interviews
16,4 Before commencing each interview, the nature of the research was again
outlined to each interviewee. It was stressed that it was the interviewees'
opinions that were being sought, that no there was no quest for ``right'' or
``wrong'' answers to the questions, and that no prior ``technical'' knowledge of
any kind was either assumed or required. Most interviewees addressed areas
530
covered in the interview guide without the need for much direction, with
perspectives on each of the questions addressed occurring at different stages in
each ``conversation''[8].
Evidence analysis
The evidence analysis constituted a pervasive activity throughout the life of
the study[9]. Huberman and Miles (1994) suggest that qualitative data analysis
contains three linked subprocesses: data reduction; data display; and
conclusion drawing/verification (see also King, 1998; Lillis, 1999). The analysis
process loosely followed these three subprocesses.
Of the 29 interviews, 25 were recorded by tape and subsequently
transcribed[10]. The post interview analysis of transcripts encompassed a
detailed search for underlying themes in the evidence collected. The broad
areas addressed in the interview guide provided an initial framework/template
from which this detailed transcript analysis could proceed, thereby providing
some initial structure to the search for themes in individual interview
transcripts (see King, 1999, 1998). However, despite the tentative framework
provided by the interview guide, the analysis was not conducted in such a
manner that themes were only identified if they merely fitted conveniently
under the interview guide categories. The process was primarily inductive,
with various themes outside the core interview guide framework/template
emerging throughout the numerous transcript readings.
As the initial transcripts were studied, a comprehensive coding scheme was
developed intuitively in order to facilitate the identification of the themes
emanating from the transcript analysis (known as `òpen'' coding) (Parker and
Roffey, 1997)[11]. Throughout subsequent transcript readings, special
significance was placed on locating cases that would tend to conflict with the
primary themes that had emanated from the earlier stages of the analysis. This
helped to provide some protection against ``the presentation of ùnreliable' or
ìnvalid' evidence'' (Miles, 1979, p. 590) (see also McKinnon, 1988; Patton, 1990;
Silverman, 2000). After each interview transcript had been coded, a ``big
picture'' summary of each interview was prepared using all notes and
reflections recorded at that stage in conjunction with the codes developed. This
highlighted emerging themes and provided general observations on the
conduct of each interview.
Detailed matrices summarising the themes/codes identified by each
interviewee (Miles and Huberman, 1994) were developed in order to display the
core themes/codes which emerged from the coding process. These displays
aided in identifying cross case patterns in the interview data (Huberman and
Miles, 1994; Miles and Huberman, 1994), with the predominant codes/themes Conceptions of
becoming evident partially by mapping the relative incidence of different corporate social
codes[12]. A detailed examination of these matrices therefore enabled the responsibility
recognition of regularities, patterns and explanations in the evidence collected.
Detailed field notes, mind maps, taperecorded reflections, memos, ``big
picture'' interview summaries, and a personal reflective journal which was
531
updated throughout the interviewing process and post interview analysis were
all studied and analysed in conjunction with a study of the matrices above.
This facilitated the formulation of an initial ``thick description'' (Denzin, 1994,
p. 505) of the interview findings written in the form of a narrative plotting the
thought processes of the managers. This narrative (Llewellyn, 1999) was
clustered around an analytical theme focused on the potential for managerial
capture and is furnished in the forthcoming section.
Managerial conceptions of corporate social responsibility

This section presents the narrative derived from the analysis of the managers'
conceptions of CSR. It commences by examining the broad ``social''
responsibilities accepted by most managers and evolves to deal in depth with
the rationales underpinning the acceptance of these responsibilities. Three key
somewhat overlapping rationales are highlighted. These are termed:
(1) proactive enlightened self interest;
(2) reactive enlightened self interest; and
(3) obligations/duties.
Within each rationale evidence of both managerial capture and resistance to
capture is presented and discussed.
The recognition of ``social'' responsibilities

All interviewees claimed to recognise broad responsibilities, and by way of
illustrating this they elaborated on the groups to whom they believed a
corporate ``social'' responsibility was owed. A ``social'' responsibility suggested
a responsibility to groups other than shareholders, initially implying a
separation between an economic focus with regard to shareholders and a
``social'' focus with respect to other stakeholders. Primary ``social''
responsibilities to the local community, employees, and the environment were
identified. There was limited reference to responsibilities to suppliers and
customers[13]:
I would certainly feel that every organisation has an obligation to its employees . . . I think
obviously from the point of view of health and safety [and] all of that area, people have to be
very well looked after [and with that], people generally get better job satisfaction (FD13R).
The fundamental impact that responsible mining companies ought to be concerned about is
the impact on the environment because that in itself would have various social impacts
(CEO3E).
AAAJ Much of the elaboration on responsibilities and what they involved tended to be
16,4 rather brief, with a number of interviewees expressing difficulty expanding
broadly on how any responsibilities might be, or were, recognised in practice.
General, somewhat banal statements along the lines of: ``. . . we are very
conscious of the need to protect the environment'' (FD6E) or ``. . . we have a
responsibility to . . . perhaps the main customers'' (FD1M) were frequently
532
proferred.
Furthermore, despite the majority of interviewees recognising
responsibilities to a broad range of constituents, there was a minority, although
strongly held, viewpoint whereby no explicit responsibility to broader
``stakeholders'' was acknowledged. This was stated bluntly by one general
manager:
. . . I do not think we have a positive reason to go out and help and do things for people . . . I do
not really think that that is part of the business of a company (M3F).
A number of managers indicated that prior to being approached for interviews,

they had not given issues surrounding corporate social responsibilities any
deep thought and preparing for their interview had given them serious cause to
contemplate on both their personal and corporate led motivations. The
interviews moved on to probe in depth the rationales behind this somewhat
cursory and implicitly narrow recognition of corporate social responsibilities.
Rationalising managerial conceptions of CSR

Economic self interest was deemed the primary motivation fuelling the
recognition of social responsibilities among the managers. Two approaches to
the adoption of social responsibilities motivated in this regard were initially
rationalised. They comprised proactive and reactive enlightened self interested
rationales underpinning CSR. Both of these rationales, particularly the former,
emphasise a perceived necessity or desire to capture and control conceptions of
CSR within conventional business norms. In doing so they initially indicate
minor concern for the impacts of business on the wider society, particularly any
duties/obligations that business might possess. However, while outlining these
rationales, 12 managers, representing all industry sectors, also provided
evidence of resistance to capture as it became apparent that there were
occasions where their personal perspectives clashed with an imposed corporate
perspective. A third rationale espoused obligations/duties owed by business to
the wider society. This rationale initially contradicted elements of the proactive
and reactive enlightened self interest perspectives emphasising managerial
capture, thereby imparting greater confidence in the existence of capture
resistance. However, persistent probing brought forth overriding perspectives
suggesting the meaning attached to the terms `òbligation'' and/or ``duty'' was
captured and equated with fulfilling corporate economic interests. These three
rationales are now presented and evidence of managerial capture and
resistance to capture is discussed within each rationale.
Rationale 1 ± proactive enlightened self interest Conceptions of
A toal of 25 (of the 29) managers expanded on this rationale for CSR in depth. It corporate social
entailed the voluntary recognition of corporate social responsibilities by responsibility
companies as long as this enhanced or failed to inhibit corporate economic
welfare. Social issues impacting on business were managed and selected with
these motivations in mind.
533
Managerial capture ± controlling the CSR agenda. This rationale

encompassed a pragmatic `ènlightened self interest'' (ESI) type perspective on
social issues whereby the effective management of social issues/stakeholders
was perceived as enabling an organisation to fulfil its primary objective of
shareholder value maximisation:
[Maximisation] of shareholder value is the prime objective of the organisation and most other
things are enabling means towards that end and that would include social activities, treating
employees correctly . . . It is not a subordination of employees to that . . . there is a close fit,
there is no antipathy between the two . . . they are complementary goals (CEO1F).
Companies do have social responsibilities, but they have to be managed in order to benefit the
company (C4O).
Managers in the exploration/extractive, printing, and retail and leisure sectors

felt that this proactive ESI perspective on CSR derived directly from the nature
of their companies' businesses:
To a certain extent the business that we are in is actually forcing us into proactively looking
at the wider social aspects (FD11P).
If they [potential investors] thought we were exposed to such [environmental] liabilities or
engaged in anything environmentally unsafe, they would run a mile from us, they would just
not invest (CEO3E).
CSR and economic self interest were therefore widely viewed as complementing
one another:
An organisation's social and business role should not be seen as being in conflict. They are
complementary rather than incompatible. You are not dealing with an either/or scenario
(FD6E).
For example, corporate involvement in community activities was perceived as

a win-win scenario for business and the community, particularly among
managers in the exploration/extractive and banking and finance sectors:
If you are well regarded by the community, your chances of success are much better. I do not
see any clash between acting sensibly in their interests and maximising shareholder value
(CEO1F).
We have a policy to take on [employ] local people [in so-called developing world communities]
. . . They can help us find out what we need to be doing in the community, let us know the
community concerns that might cause problems and how these might be dealt with (FD6E).
The physically fixed nature of many exploration/extractive operations meant

that acting responsibly towards the community was perceived as allowing
operations to proceed relatively unhindered:
AAAJ We are not a company who can pick up and go and are, in a sense, in situ because of the
nature of the business we're in. Therefore it is important we are proactive in the community in
16,4 order to be accepted into the environment as very much one of the family (CEO2E).
For one manager in a major retail bank, proactive concern for the environment
in lending policies was driven by business imperatives as it ``had to be careful
to manage environmental risk in lending'' (FD12F). Proactive community
534
involvement was also seen by five other banking and finance sector managers
as providing a competitive advantage, while one printing sector manager
emphasised the business benefits to be derived from treating employees
respectfully:
There is commercial leverage to community involvement . . . so there is stuff that you do to
make sure that your [company] is up there along with [competitors] in terms of identity
(FD5F).
This is not sentimental but if you fix your people you fix your business . . . it contributes to a
successful business but it must be real and done in a meaningful way (FD8P).
Initially, prior to extensive probing, there was a general unwillingness to

contemplate situations where economic and social responsibilities might
conflict. When the issue of potential conflict was raised, managers were asked
to what extent social issues would be allowed to undermine economic
objectives. Most managers, particularly those in the banking and finance
sector, maintained that economic objectives would have to reign:
At one level environmental issues are very positive, there is money to be saved . . . beyond
that it gets quite difficult where there are nil pay backs if you want to call them that . . . we
have a real conflict, and there is no point in disguising it in my view, between our
shareholders' wish to increase earnings and return on capital, and maybe a perceived social
responsibility to have no effluent (FD7E).
I think one would want to distinguish now between community in the sense of participation
and involvement and doing things for what I would call the larger community generally, and
doing something which would be almost tantamount to welfare, like providing a banking
service where you could only lose money hand over fist in doing it. We are not into that
community service and would never claim to be (CEO1F).
One highly experienced chairperson of a number of Irish plcs expressed the

view, implicit in many managers' perspectives, that business had to benefit in
order to justify proactive community involvement:
Allocations of money to [community] organisations are purely business driven. Twenty years
ago companies would make donations and these would not be as business driven as they are
today . . . Now you must give something back to business if you are seeking donations . . .
Business does not have any innate feeling of being responsible (C4O).
Managers in the banking and finance sector tended to accord with this
viewpoint whereby CSR had to aid the business economically:
If we decide we are going to be proactive and do a decent thing [a community crime
prevention initiative], we are not doing it for moral reasons we are doing it for business
reasons . . . it is important that we get maximum benefit from it . . . otherwise we will not do it
(FD10F).
There is absolutely no altruistic background to a sense of social responsibility here . . . we Conceptions of
merely realise that our brand or our image could be adversely affected if we were seen to
conduct our business in socially irresponsible way (FD6F). corporate social
We have some responsibilities to local communities, but as for going out of our way to hold
responsibility
picnics on the green for the community we do not do any of that . . . we do not have a liberal
agenda here, we're here to make money for the shareholders and that is what we're going to
do (FD8P).
535
This scheme would cease [employing local disadvantaged people] if it adversely affected
profits. We are in this business for profit not prestige (FD4R).
One chairperson indicated how a company she was involved with as a

non-executive director had given a large donation to a major charity and had
monitored the public relations they received from the donation by placing a
monetary value on the public relations exposure:
They found that the net effect was that the donation was effectively making money for them
(C4O).
There was some explicit recognition that the motivations above represented a
cynical/manipulative approach to CSR through community involvement aimed
at capturing and controlling conceptions of CSR on behalf of companies. This
viewpoint was implicit in many of the other perspectives:
I would say they [social issues] are probably becoming more opinion forming or more
manipulative or whatever way you want to describe it . . . For example, if one wanted to
change the way one did business, to move it from bricks and mortar . . . to something much
more modern. I mean I could see it might make sense to pick a community somewhere that
would rapidly see the benefits of it and maybe deliver a super service there for a while with a
view to gaining acceptance of how desirable this was from both parties' point of view, [giving
the impression of] meeting needs as opposed to selling products or making profits (CEO1F).
While these rationales illustrate a certain, albeit reluctant, willingness to

proactively engage with those pursuing a broader, duty focused social role for
business, this is on extremely restricted terms. A resistance to embracing any
form of change outside the parameters of ``business as usual'' is evident,
thereby embodying a clear threat and challenge to the core society-centred
objectives of social accountants. However, these perspectives were not all
pervasive. In response to careful probing aimed at delving deeper into these
somewhat narrow viewpoints, certain managers admitted to a sense of unease
with their apparent limited nature. The narrative proceeds to consider these
expressions of unease.
Resistance to managerial capture ± personal defiance of structural pressures.
While explicating their proactive ESI rationale for CSR, 12 managers from
various industry sectors also acknowledged that this represented an extremely
narrow conceptualisation of CSR. They claimed that, while conceptualising
CSR as a proactive activity aimed at deriving business benefits was rational
from a corporate perspective, it was not necessarily consistent with their
personally led motives. There was a sense that this was the conception they felt
they had to adopt and accept given powerful obstacles in practice which curbed
AAAJ any recognition of broader social responsibilities irrespective of economic
16,4 consequences. These perceived barriers primarily related to pressures exerted
on publicly quoted companies to produce short term results for shareholders
and fund institutions in an intensely competitive working environment:
One of the difficulties they [public companies] are forced into by analysts is the focus is
always on short term results, you know, this year's profits, next year's profits. Now there is a
536
lot of lip service paid to where is the company going five and ten years out, but the analysts
look at what is today's EPS and what are they going to be next year and how does that relate
to the share price and so on (M1M).
Everything you do in a public company is very very obvious, [there is] the short termism . . .
financial institutions, pension funds driving companies to produce results . . . It perhaps
discourages certain kinds of investment, certain kinds of ``soft'' investment (C1F).
There were few pressures from shareholders or fund institutions to become

involved with social or environmental issues and this meant that if personal
concerns came into play managers had ``to discipline [their] own particular
reactions'' (M1M):
I probably see about a hundred [fund] institutions a year, say over the last ten years, that's . . .
about a thousand institutional visits, one on one meetings. The environment hasn't been
raised by one . . . there have been a huge range of topics, but never the environment (FD7E).
Institutional investors' moral fibre may not be quite as high or tested as your own, you know,
so they do not concern themselves with these [CSR] issues (FD5F).
The company is under pressure to make profits to survive and very often this means that
unpleasant tasks have to be undertaken (M1M).
These managers were extremely keen to emphasise their lack of personal

choice regarding the ``social'' responsibilities they might assume on behalf of
their organisations. To deviate from an exclusive focus on shareholder value by
broadening a company's outlook, encompassing more voluntary consideration
of social issues less led by economic imperatives, would involve the risk of
failure in their employers' eyes and, in some cases, the potential loss of their
management roles within their organisations:
Executive time these days is so taken up, they have not time for their family, never mind
dealing with things they do not think are urgent, it is very much a question of prioritising
things and they just have not time to cope adequately with that aspect [social responsibility]
because it is not essential to what they are doing if they want to keep their jobs (C3P).
In our industry [the exploration/extractive industry], they [professional managers] do things
they have to, they do whatever they need to complete the job or else their positions are at risk
(FD9E).
I think the lesson in life really is, you have to be focused to succeed and, you cannot be spread
too thinly, and therefore it is probably fair to say that social responsibilities come down the
pecking list (FD7E).
These pressures left little time for concerns about broader ``social''
responsibilities:
I have not the time to go and make the organisation as I would like it to be. It is like a child, Conceptions of
you do not have time to reason with a child, sometimes you give it a smack on the bottom,
``now go away and do that'', but you do not have the ten minutes it takes to deal with [all the] corporate social
issues as you would like to, it is a smack and on you go, and everybody does it (FD8P). responsibility
The level of other pressures on managers in public limited companies led to a
defensive reaction from certain managers in the printing and retail and leisure
537
sectors who felt the corporate sector was not the only sector of society that
should be expected to act responsibly:
There is always this onus on others to take on the responsibility . . . an example is the lack of
care in society for the old . . . we have to think more broadly, it is not enough to be focusing
only on corporations, too much should not be asked of corporations . . . if you are going to
have responsibility then you need everyone doing it . . . employees must take their
responsibility and self-generate corporate giving from the bottom up (C2P).
Ten of these 12 managers gave vent to expressions of regret at these corporate

imposed constraints and were rather rueful when discussing these restrictions.
Moreover, eight of these ten managers insisted that, for them, when their
personal conception of CSR was threatened by a corporate imposed
perspective, they would resist firmly:
I would have absolutely nothing to do with anything that I thought was immoral or unethical
in any way . . . I just would not work in one of these companies who decide that they are
going to give lots of money to politicians or something, or hand out bribes for any reason, but
again, it is as I said I am a real black and white person (FD9E).
I am glad right now that I do not work for an oil company because they are getting into the
use of non renewable resources [and] it is a much more vexed issue (S1P).
Evidence of this clash between a corporate led proactive ESI CSR conception
and a personal CSR conception was principally apparent among managers who
spoke of responsibilities owed to employees and local communities. For
example, while expounding on a proactive ESI rationale for CSR, a highly
experienced chairman of two older companies in the printing sector also put
forward a case for ``gainsharing'', where employees share in any gains that
companies make[14]. He indicated that he had known a time when employees
were dispensed with if there was no work available, and while he recognised
the business realities, he called for a more co-operative approach between
employees and management. He expressed, relative to many other managers,
an apparent deep personal concern for fair and equitable treatment of
employees:
. . . [what] I do find difficult to deal with is that cutting down staff is the first resort and not
the last resort . . . I think all other avenues should be examined before necessarily letting
people go . . . Many companies, if not all companies, treat it as sympathetically as they can,
but it is just that [there is an] impersonal approach at the moment (C3P).
In a similar vein, a company secretary in the printing sector was adamant that
responsibilities to the local community should extend to communities in any
location a company operated in, and not merely those which were clearly
visible in the Irish context:
AAAJ I think it is when you look at a company's performance in the developing world, that is when
you really show it up for what it is, because there are many instances of ``nice'' companies in
16,4 the UK and they have their ``nice'' little headquarters, and everybody comes out in their ``nice''
little blue and white uniforms and their practices in commodity trade in sub Sahara Africa
[or] in mineral extraction in South East Asia would leave a lot to be desired, but everything is
hunky dory (S1P).
538 The above perspectives suggest some resistance to a narrow proactive ESI
conception of CSR. However, given structural pressures, it was perceived that

one of the last items on a manager's agenda would involve consideration of his/
her company's social impact unless economic interests were threatened. The
prevailing view emerged that even if managers wished to work proactively on
a company's social involvement this was problematic for them on a practical
level given a perception of limited power at the corporate level.
Despite the structural restrictions perceived above, suggestions did emanate
indicating that it might sometimes be possible for CEOs or chairpersons to
influence companies' attitudes to CSR through direct intervention or through
their frequently dominant influence on organisational culture. This was
deemed to be especially the case in smaller plcs. In some instances, this power
was seen as potentially, although not necessarily, providing some resistance to
narrower notions of CSR. For example, 19 interviewees claimed that broader
responsibilities could possibly be recognised through the translation of
personal motivations from the top of a company into corporate social activities/
responsibilities:
If you have somebody at the top of the company who has a social conscience, who is
interested in employees, that spreads right down through the company. If you have
somebody at the top who does not give a hoot, he wants to make as much profit as he can, he
does not care what happens, he wants to increase his own salary, then it spreads right down
through the whole company . . . a bad fish stinks from the head . . . As chairman of a company
I believe in certain issues surrounding corporate social responsibility, and if I believe these
things I have to do something about them . . . and I have the power to do that (C3P).
Even in a public company, one strong CEO could set the tone for corporate social
responsibility and insist on certain activities and operations (FD3F).
The fact is that at any point in time a powerful influence [on CSR] is somebody at the top, they
set the tune the organisation is working to (C1F).
Ireland is such a small community that it is very easy to see how people do translate their
personal standards and personal views into their corporate being. Those at the top of
organisations can do this and influence the culture of an organisation in a positive way [with
respect to CSR] (CEO3E).
A finance director of a major hotel chain mentioned how his board had the
power to decide to employ disadvantaged individuals in their locality and
succeeded in ``bringing people up from nothing, where they had a rolling start,
they took off, they left and they have done very well for themselves'' (FD4R).
These perceptions of the potential power of CEOs and chairpersons seem to
contradict the perceived impact of structural restrictions on management when
addressing CSR. They suggest that the restrictions some managers claim exist Conceptions of
may not be as overbearing as they maintain, particularly in smaller companies. corporate social
The forthcoming section proceeds to examine the second rationale fuelling responsibility
the recognition of ``social'' responsibilities among the managers. As with the
current section, a key focus on ESI is evident, albeit in a reactive as opposed to
a proactive vein. Evidence of managerial capture and resistance to capture
539
within this rationale is also illuminated.
Rationale 2 ± reactive enlightened self interest

The proactive ESI rationale initially involved a narrow voluntary recognition
of so-called ``social'' responsibilities if appropriate, implying recognition only if
business could proactively control and capture social issues impacting on
business. However, as outlined above, during discussions of this narrow
conception of CSR, pockets of resistance to outright corporate capture of the
CSR concept did emerge and were fuelled mainly by personal perspectives
`òutside'' the organisation. The second key ESI rationale fuelling the
identification and acceptance of some form of CSR encompassed a reactive,
enlightened, self interested perspective. This was perceived as being primarily
instigated by external pressure imposed on companies deriving from many,
often overlapping, sources such as legislation, local communities, pressure
groups with single issue agendas, and the print media. These pressures were
particularly prevalent in Ireland around the time the interviews were
conducted. The initial tendency of most managers to capture conceptions of
CSR within a business-focused framework evident above becomes even more
so within this rationale. This is due to the managers' tendency to exhibit a
primarily negative disposition towards external pressure from stakeholders
outside the shareholder body. Principally, this emanates from a perception that
pressure of this nature makes the control and capture of social issues and
demands more problematic leading to the increased potential for encroachment
on core economic interests. Consequently, these perceptions initially
demonstrate a further resistance to (externally imposed) change aimed at
benefiting the wider society. However, as with the proactive ESI rationale
above, clear deviations emerged during some managers' discussion of this
overriding perception of external pressure. For example, nine managers
primarily from the printing and exploration/extractive sectors were unwilling
to dismiss external pressure entirely out of hand. They felt that responding to
this form of pressure was something business should do and they were less
concerned at the potential threat to control of the CSR agenda external pressure
imposed. Furthermore, they also expressed reservations regarding certain
companies' limited response to external community pressures. While these
views represented a minority they were imparted quite ardently and provide
further, albeit limited, evidence of pockets of resistance to overriding
managerial capture. As with the evidence of capture resistance in the proactive
ESI perspectives above, these viewpoints tended to emanate from a personal
perspective which appeared to conflict with a corporate standpoint.
AAAJ Managerial capture ± managerial intolerance of societal resistance to capture
16,4 and control. A responsive approach to various social pressures was deemed
appropriate in order to avoid potentially damaging economic impacts on
business. These pressures clearly perturbed many managers, particularly
those in sectors with a publicly perceived environmental impact such as the
exploration/extractive, manufacturing/processing, food and drink and printing
540
sectors. Managers in all sectors tended to be very sensitive to local community

pressures. However, there were seven managers who felt that their particular
industry sector and/or relative size (ranging from a bottle manufacturer to a
small mining company) insulated them, to some degree, from social pressures.
A total of 14 interviewees working in all sectors felt that, generally, the
capacity of external pressure to impact negatively on a company's economic
welfare was enhanced by the nature and particularly the small size of Ireland's
social, political and economic environment. This increased companies'
sensitivity to social pressure and encouraged a responsive approach. This
sensitivity derived, on occasion, from the prevailing public criticism of
elements of the Irish business community around the time of the interviews:
This is a small country and every informed person knows most business actions and business
people. This can lead to social pressure to be socially responsible (C4O).
I think it is because of more awareness of communities and people knowing people and
making approaches, on whatever the subject may be, through contacts which does not
happen to the same extent in the UK due to the size factor (FD7E).
Ireland is too small a country in which to make enemies [and] being a large company in a
small market can leave you more exposed . . . this leads to the need to be more socially
responsive (S2P).
A reactive, responsive approach to various social pressures was deemed

appropriate in this context in order to avoid potentially damaging economic
impacts. A predominantly negative perception of externally imposed social
pressure, as alluded to above, from whatever source, was evident throughout,
particularly from more experienced managers. For example, in the exploration/
extractive industry, pressure from environmental groups was highly evident
and two managers claimed, quite defensively, that these groups merely
represented overly vocal minorities:
. . . the silent majority stay silent and . . . there is certainly a strong [environmental lobby]
against mining, because in every mining project in this country that lobby has turned up in
opposition and they are the same people (CEO3E).
Some of the pressure can involve outrageous claims . . . although we always respond to
reasonable demands (FD6E).
If companies had to react to external social pressures they were often perceived
as having surrendered control of the issues or of perceptions of them. There
was a greater sense of conflict between economic and social objectives in these
perceptions, as social issues were perceived as being imposed on business and
therefore proving less amenable to control or capture. A number of highly
experienced managers were especially dismissive and disdainful of this
pressure. One chairperson complained that ``companies [were] exposed to more Conceptions of
pressure than in the USA or UK'' (C4O), while a finance director in the corporate social
exploration/extractive sector bemoaned the `òutrageous claims'' (FD6E) made responsibility
on his company by pressure groups. A company secretary in the printing
sector who emphasised his personal concern for the environment throughout
his interview complained that:
541
. . . the trouble with some of these characters on the environmental side [environmental
pressure groups] is that . . . they have no mandate other than one they have devised for
themselves (S1P).
He voiced concern at being ``mandated to by a quango''. Two managers in the

manufacturing/processing sector claimed they had been forced to observe more
concern for the environment in their operations and that, as a result, their
`ìndustry [had] to grow up'' (FD2M) in response to increased public
environmental awareness and pressure resulting, in part, one claimed, ``from
[Irish] society becoming more affluent'' (M1M). A manager in the food and
drink sector reflected on how pressure brought to bear on his company's
treatment of farm workers in Central America led to improved living conditions
being provided by his company for these workers. It irritated him that the
company was forced to act as a result of external pressures in Ireland but he
conceded that ultimately it was ``probably the right thing to do'' (FD3FD).
Pressure imposed through the print media was viewed very unfavourably
by seven managers. For example, one manager of a large hotel chain felt that
negative perceptions of business from certain sectors of Irish society were
directly influenced by the media as they ``tend[ed] to slate certain aspects of
business'' (FD4R). There was an implication that companies may have been
forced to defend certain socially-related practices or to provide more evidence
in relation to them due to media pressure, something many managers were
unhappy about. Managers in the exploration/ extractive sector were generally
of the view that media pressure kept them alert to potential social concerns.
However, one CEO claimed that they rarely had a chance to put their case:
There is a despairing view among many of my colleagues that you can try and set the record
straight but the media will not give you the exposure or the space to set the record straight
(CEO3E).
Pressure groups were also perceived as having good access to the media, which
made the rebuttal of accusations more difficult. One finance director in the
manufacturing/processing sector felt aggrieved at media treatment of a
particular scenario with environmental implications that his company was
being attacked for at the time of his interview:
It has got media attention totally disproportionate to, in our view, the nature of what we are
doing there [clearing a wood for quarrying] and what we are seeking to do there . . . the
environmental side has developed quite a good profile in the media . . . [they] seem to be very
well connected . . . In terms of the financial cost to the group it is irrelevant, it is more an
irritant [and] contrary to our image as a good citizen in Ireland, and it is probably doing some
damage to that image in the repeated exposure in the press (FD2M).
AAAJ These reluctant reactive ESI perspectives suggested that a company's industry
16,4 sector impacted on the level of pressure imposed. However, apart from the
seven managers who felt their company size and/or sector insulated them from
external scrutiny, all sectors seemed exposed to some form of pressure. For
example, all other managers ranging across the industry sectors expressed the
view that their particular companies had come under pressure to which they
542
felt they had to respond in order to protect their economic interests. The extent
of this pressure seems, however, to have been strongest in the exploration/
extractive, food and drink, and printing sectors, as managers in these sectors
were particularly forthcoming regarding external pressures:
Well, I think in this country anyway, and probably in many others, we are under a lot of
constraints . . . the [exploration/extractive] industry in general suffers from a very bad brand
image, if I can put it like that (CEO3E).
The overall attitude to the varying pressures implied that companies

recognised social responsibilities in this responsive vein because they had to,
due to these powerful, often complex and overlapping, external pressures,
rather than because they wanted to:
I still feel much of that [social] responsibility is driven by compliance and peer pressure rather
than any true desire to want to do it . . . I think Irish industry and Irish culture has come on a
lot [but] I still feel it is a little bit driven by what it has to do, rather than what it should do . . .
You still get the feeling that an Irish company would throw a barrel of something over the
bridge at night if it thought it could get away with it (S1P).
According to 13 managers from all sectors, the necessity of responding to

legislation also drove a number of companies to be ``socially'' responsible. Yet
again, it was evident that these managers were unhappy having social
responsibilities imposed on their companies in this vein and were critical of
much of the legislation they felt forced to comply with:
Some of it [the legislation] is overkill . . . [but] there is the reality that if you do not [comply
with legislation] they will shut you down in this day and age, with environmental protection
acts and the monitoring that goes on (CEO2E).
These perspectives reflect a certain reluctance to willingly engage with

externally imposed pressures, be they from the media, pressure groups or
through legislation. Openness to engagement appears dependent on corporate
control of the engagement process and the potential for critical engagement is
made problematic by the extreme sensitivity, in some cases resentment, of
many managers to external pressure. This apparent intolerance emphasises a
major challenge for social accountants in this context in their attempts to
transform practice through engagement (see also O'Dwyer, 2002).
Resistance to managerial capture ± managerial tolerance of societal resistance
to capture and control. Despite the perspectives presented above, nine
managers felt strongly that much of the pressure on industry was deserved and
did not perceive it in such an overridingly intolerant fashion. For example, two
managers in the exploration/extractive sector who had been somewhat
disdainful of external pressures earlier in their interviews admitted that their
industry deserved some of the pressure and public scepticism, given its Conceptions of
apparent poor human resources record in the past: corporate social
Well I think in the last century and the early days of this century, safety procedures were responsibility
absolutely appalling and they still are in some parts of the world . . . there is still a folk
memory of a very unsafe, very dangerous, very exploitative industry as far as the workers
were concerned (CEO2E).
543
It is proper order in the sense that it is [external pressure] all designed to make sure
outrageous things do not happen as they did in the past (FD7E).
One finance director was openly critical of the exploration/extractive industry's

general treatment of employees. She was welcoming of pressures that forced
the industry to ``sort out its act'' (FD9E). While accepting that her own company
provided good employment conditions, she bemoaned the lack of respect for
employees in the industry generally:
I think they need to have far more concern for people rather than just doing whatever a
geologist loves to do, finding a mine and developing it and making big profits (FD9E).
Explicit in these perspectives was a sense of a broad quasi moral duty

emanating from a personal viewpoint which was somewhat at variance with
the narrow conceptions outlined earlier. This broader sense of duty to the wider
society was evident in the above finance director's criticism of her industry's
attempts to communicate with local communities in response to pressures and
concerns:
I think the industry definitely have, they have a duty that they have not fulfilled, to educate
and inform people about the industry . . . They need somebody who can answer questions
and put people's fears away . . . I think the industry has a duty to provide something for the
public (FD9E).
More generally, among managers in other sectors, there was some criticism of
the somewhat reluctant, minimalist response to community pressures. Five
managers from the banking and finance, printing, manufacturing/processing,
and retail and leisure sectors felt this was dismissive and insulting. They
contended that community involvement was too often seen as merely entailing
some form of donation or sponsorship in a company's immediate community as
a form of `èasy'' response to widely expressed concerns:
The cheque book is a fairly easy way [of demonstrating responsibility] . . . but giving your
time, now that is a different matter entirely (C1F).
Maybe sometimes it is seen as easier to write a cheque than go and do anything else about it
like spending valuable time on the [social] issue (FD1M).
Managers in the retail and leisure and printing sectors explicitly questioned the
view that donations to the community immediately implied the fulfilment of a
responsibility in response to external pressures:
The whole concept of a corporate social sense I think is, and can be, much wider than just the
traditional pay a few quid to a local charity (S5R).
AAAJ It should not always be seen as being about money. Workforces can help out in certain
circumstances (C2P).
16,4
The pockets of resistance to managerial capture outlined above allied to those
illustrated when discussing the proactive ESI rationale provide some glimmer
of hope regarding the potential for engagement focused on bringing about
organisational change. The third and final rationale fuelling the recognition of
544
social responsibilities emphasises managers' desire to discuss obligations

and/or duties separately deemed owed to the wider society. These perspectives
initially provide further indications of capture resistance but on deeper analysis
prove disappointing in this regard. This rationale and its overall implications
for managerial capture and resistance to capture is now presented and
discussed.
Rationale 3 ± obligations/duties
Bucholz (1987) has argued that ``responsibility'' is a moral term and implies an
obligation to someone or something. While many arguments have ensued
regarding the obligations of business towards the wider society, among social
accountants organisations are perceived as having obligations that extend
beyond the economic domain, even extending to future generations (Gray et al.,
1996). Some of the perspectives above illustrating personal resistance to an
overriding ESI perspective of CSR implicitly emphasise a view of CSR as a
form of quasi moral obligation. These expressions of resistance emanated
during discussions surrounding the proactive and reactive ESI rationales for
CSR. However, 19 managers (18 of whom had previously rationalised CSR as
some form of ESI) expanded in more depth separately on a perception of CSR as
a form of obligation or duty owed to certain sectors of society. This distinctive,
separate emphasis on obligations owed to the wider society predominated
among managers in the exploration/extractive and banking and finance
sectors. These perceptions initially provide further indications of capture
resistance given the sense that many explicitly felt ``certain responsibilities
[could] be discharged without seeking any payback as a consequence'' (S3F):
There is no doubt that there are cases where you act out of a sense of obligation because you
think it is a good cause and it does not necessarily have any payback for you (S5M).
This apparent notion of obligations due irrespective of economic success was,

however, challenged by the interviewer, given it appeared to contradict some
managers' prior espousal of proactive and reactive ESI rationales for CSR
focused on managerial capture. These managers were therefore asked whether
fulfilling obligations and duties really implied undertaking actions irrespective
of the economic consequences. Their responses indicate that, for many, this
was patently not the case and illustrate how the emancipatory potential
implicit in the meaning of terms such as `òbligation'' and ``duty'' focused on
broadening the responsibilities of business in the wider society's interests can
itself be captured and often conflated with economic self interest.
Resistance to managerial capture ± embracing broad notions of obligations Conceptions of
and/or duties. When alluding to obligations, the managers tended to speak corporate social
from a personal as opposed to a corporate perspective, similar to that outlined responsibility
under the proactive and reactive ESI perspectives. Their concern with
obligations appeared to emanate from a desire to dampen the apparent narrow,
largely unenlightened focus of the predominant proactive and reactive ESI
545
perspectives which, as outlined earlier, some managers seemed slightly

uncomfortable with on a personal level. Initially these obligations/duties were
proffered quite generally as deriving from a broadly moralistic perspective and
were perceived by the interviewer as existing regardless of any economic
consequences. They tended to derive directly from the prior indications of
resistance to the proactive and reactive ESI perspectives. For example, a ``moral
obligation [or duty] to give something back'' (FD5F), particularly to local
communities, was extensively acknowledged:
If you are drawing wealth out of the community, you have an obligation to put something
back into it . . . Most companies would require little persuasion that they have an obligation to
people they deal directly with (S3F).
There is a recognition that we are part of the fabric of this society in Ireland and therefore
[there is] a duty to do something. I do not think it is in any way different for any size of
company [and] if we do not take the lead in these types of issues we are ignoring a
fundamental obligation that we have . . . We will not become involved in activities that will
threaten the moral fibre of the company (FD5F).
We live in a community and we depend on the community, and whatever we do or get, we get
from the community, I feel that we owe something back (C3P).
Companies have a certain moral responsibility . . . it is an obligation [and] this is in addition to
all the statutory things they do . . . I think they have a moral, with a small ``m'' responsibility
to look after the local community they deal with and so on (S3F).
One CEO in the exploration/extractive sector was adamant regarding

obligations to protect the environment:
It is our environment, it is our country, this is one little operation [his company], this is not
robber barons sort of time, this is not the 1800s, companies have a responsibility to protect the
environment (CEO2E).
Another CEO in this sector contended that company responsibilities reflected

individual responsibilities and that individuals had an obligation to, for
example, the environment irrespective of economic concerns:
There is an individual responsibility on every professional to treat the environmental issue
very very seriously and to bring to bear the very best technological solutions to any
particular problem, so it is not simply a matter of being driven to ensure that the company is
efficient and profitable, it is not just that . . . I think it is a question of individual responsibility
(CEO3E).
There was a clear sense that obligations existed regardless of economic

imperatives and were derived ``from the moral conscience of . . . organisation[s]''
(FD5F) and that they ``should not be curtailed to appease institutional
investors'' (FD5F). This was highlighted by the manager of a major retail bank
AAAJ who indicated that [social] work he had undertaken in the community had not
16,4 directly benefited the bank:
I think large institutions in any society have to contribute to the intellectual development of
that society, they have their share of the talent of the community and they have both an
individual and a corporate responsibility to put something back in [to] it, that is certainly the
way I feel about it . . . [For example], in some of the things that the bank has facilitated me to
546
do, it is very hard to see a direct business [benefit] (M2F).
One company secretary was adamant that there was no excuse for not fulfilling
fundamental obligations to employees in whatever part of the world your
company operated in:
I do not think it is enough for a company to say we are paying top dollar in Colombia, when
top dollar in Colombia is a pittance by Irish standards and it is still not enough to afford, you
know, a half decent lifestyle for your workforce (S1P).
While these perspectives provide some evidence of capture resistance, they

were challenged during the interviews as a number of these managers had
previously espoused both proactive and reactive ESI rationales emphasising
managerial capture of the CSR conception. Their response to this probing saw
them return to these initial capture-oriented rationales and indicate that the
potential for capture resistance evident above is not quite as clear cut as it had
initially appeared.
Managerial capture ± the capture of meaning. Many of the references to
obligations were rather ambiguous and were often alluded to rather than
expanded on in any detail, particularly when compared with the level of
detailed discussion of the proactive and reactive ESI rationales emphasising
managerial capture examined earlier. There was little elaboration as to what
exactly fulfilling one's obligations would or should involve in practice.
Comments like ``we have . . . a moral obligation to society'' (FD5F) and ``. . . it
[business] has an obligation on environmental issues'' (FD13R) as well as
``. . . we have an obligation to . . . the main customers'' (FD1M) were common.
The impression was given that many managers were concerned with
appearing supportive of broad quasi-moralistic obligations. However,
managerial capture is a subtle process and it was only when these managers
were probed further in order to expose in more detail the underlying meaning
they attached to the terms `òbligation'' and/or ``duty'' that it became clear many
tended to conflate notions of obligation and/or duty with economic self interest,
despite insisting this was not the case. For example, persistent probing caused
most managers to backtrack somewhat on their initial insistence on obligations
being due irrespective of economic impacts. They tended, in some cases
implicitly, to indicate that obligations were actually due as long as they failed
to threaten corporate economic interests and were therefore perceived as
secondary to economic success. Furthermore, there was a widespread
indication that obligations were viewed as being owed as a result of a
company's economic success:
The wealthier and more powerful the individual is, the greater the responsibility and Conceptions of
obligation . . . and this applies equally to the corporation (C3P).
corporate social
I think it is the right thing [that] if people [or companies] are doing well they should do more
[for society] (FD3F).
responsibility
I think success fuels it [a sense of obligation] . . . I think that what it clearly does is that it
gives us the wherewithal to make significant contributions. We would not be giving close to
547
half a million pounds to [name of university] if we did not have it (FD1M).
One chairman, while claiming to recognise ``fundamental'' obligations to

society, appeared to feel they would be downplayed in times of economic
difficulty:
. . . we have always been, up to our most recent [economic] difficulties, more than generous in
the matter of funding social aspects (C3P).
Others felt, similarly, that there was a primary obligation to shareholders and
employees and once this was fulfilled, only then could companies look at
broader social responsibilities:
Surely it is no different from your own household is it? You know if you have got a salary of
£100 a week or whatever it is, you may just be barely able to look after your family, if that
suddenly goes up to £200 well then you can be very generous if you go to mass on Sunday or
wherever you go, you might put £5 in the box but you know you cannot do that if you have a
problem putting food on the table for your family . . . [there is] absolutely no difference, you
can help your neighbour if you have the money to do it, but your first obligation is to your
own house (FD13R).
The first obligation of a business is to their shareholders . . . and to those directly involved in
the company . . . it is only if they have sufficient funds after having done that type of thing
that they can afford to be generous or to share their good fortune (FD7E).
I think that the obligation is to protect their staff and their shareholders . . . and after that then
I think it is only after that you can look at starting to contribute more widely (FD14R).
The potentially liberating nature of the terms obligation and/or duty seems
captured in these conceptions, with CSR2 notions of CSR tending to be
conflated with elements of the (albeit ambiguous) CSR1 conception. In essence,
`òbligations'' or ``duties'' come to mean what business wants them to mean.
They become dependent on rather than independent of corporate economic
goals. Consequently, these conceptions, to some extent, downplay:
. . . the idea that corporate social responsibility could [involve] an affirmative duty to work
toward a better society, or that it [could] be a pleasurable and rewarding venture . . . or that
some profits are better not made (Wood, 1991b, p. 71, emphasis added).
Discussion and conclusions

The principal purpose of this paper was to present a narrative reflecting an in-
depth examination into managerial conceptions of CSR in the Irish context. By
reporting on an engagement with corporate management regarding a concept
(CSR) central to the concerns of social accountants the paper informs the debate
surrounding the nature and extent of the threat of managerial capture of social
accountants' broad, society-centred CSR conception. The paper contributes to
AAAJ the recent increase in field based social accounting research which has focused
16,4 on examining managerial perspectives in order to, inter alia, understand the
internal processes and/or motives driving corporate stakeholder accountability
mechanisms (Adams, 1999, 2000, 2002; O'Dwyer, 2002) and the potential for
organisational change emanating from the implementation of these
mechanisms (such as environmental accounting) (Larrinaga-Gonzalez and
548
Bebbington, 2001; Larrinaga-Gonzalez et al., 2001). By concentrating on

managerial perspectives of the CSR dimension of the corporate social
(stakeholder) accountability framework, the paper fills a research gap
in the social accounting (and accountability) literature where there is very little
in-depth empirical examination of the meaning of CSR, particularly for
corporate managers.
This study reports on the perceptions of 29 senior executives and, as such,
any consideration of the findings can only be attributed to these individuals.
Three key findings emerge within the narrative. First, there is evidence of a
tendency for managers to interpret CSR in a constricted fashion consistent with
corporate goals of shareholder wealth maximisation. Considerable emphasis is
placed on a desire/necessity to manage companies' relations with society
(particularly local communities), thereby reflecting an apparent belief that
adopting a self interested responsive (CSR2) approach to business social
involvement implies the exhibition of a social responsibility (CSR1). This is
evident in the capture of the meaning of terms with moralistic connotations
such as `òbligation'' and ``duty'' which are often interpreted as being dependent
on rather than independent of economic success. These conceptions make CSR
manageable and any tensions between corporate and society-centred goals are
downplayed. Managers are then left free to determine their own limited
conception of CSR, thus perpetrating a form of managerial capture of
its meaning.
Second, this evidence of capture is not all pervasive, as pockets of resistance
to capture are apparent among a number of managers. This resistance
emanated during managers' deliberations on the structural constraints
imposed on them which, they claimed, prevented them from conceiving of CSR
in a broader, more societally concerned vein. However, despite these
constraints many managers insisted that their personal perspective would
override any narrow, corporate imposed CSR conception. It is, however,
unclear, given these structural constraints complained of, whether these values
held `òutside'' organisations would be allowed to pervade `ìnside''
organisations. Nevertheless, these perceptions do provide some encouragement
for social accountants in that social accounting initiatives aimed at instigating
evolutionary change may accord with these managers' personal CSR
conceptions and be guaranteed at least a hearing from some senior executives.
However, whatever efforts social accountants employ, a healthy regard for the
structural restrictions imposed on management will be necessary and
inevitably constraining.
Third, CSR is clearly a complex concept and the somewhat contradictory Conceptions of
nature of many perceptions analysed here support this. For example, prior to corporate social
probing, most managers insisted on obligations being due to the wider society responsibility
regardless of economic impacts, while at the same time espousing the view that
CSR had to support economic goals in order to be widely accepted. One
chairman pondered:
549
Does corporate social responsibility have any concrete meaning? Is it possible to [ever] define
it? (C3P).
Once managers moved beyond conceptualising the concept as a means towards

enhanced shareholder wealth maximisation, it became more problematic for
them to articulate clearly and consistently what it might mean, suggesting that
the concept may be as difficult to intellectualise as to apply for these managers.
The narrative suggests two broad implications for attempts to enhance
corporate accountability and responsibility towards the wider society in the
Irish context. First, external pressure or the threat of external pressure seems to
be a prerequisite for change. For example, despite evidence of substantial
intolerance of external pressure, managers felt compelled to respond to it,
especially if it threatened corporate reputation and/or the ability to operate
unhindered. Furthermore, evidence is also presented indicating that some
managers were tolerant of external pressure as it meant that industries and
companies were forced into change, particularly industries such as the
exploration/extractive industry. Prior research indicates that the managers
interviewed recognise that Irish pressure groups and, indeed, the wider public,
are not easily convinced by corporate rhetoric regarding ``socially responsible''
actions, particularly given recent concerns with corporate malpractice (see
O'Dwyer, 2002). This may indicate that substantive change in response to
external pressure is more likely in this context. If external pressure is brought
to bear on Irish corporations, social accountants could have a role in
encouraging some form of meaningful dialogue between stakeholders and
companies. Dialogue of this nature is not alien to the Irish context, given much
of Ireland's rapid economic growth in the mid to late 1990s was underpinned by
a social partnership approach which involved discussion and agreement
among a number of diverse social actors, including business groups and
employee bodies.
Second, as a consequence of the above, voluntary attempts to broaden the
corporate social responsibilities of business in Ireland are unlikely to succeed,
given the strong tendency towards capture among many managers as a result
of the structural pressures they purport to work within. Many of the
perspectives support the claims of social accountants who indicate that
encouraging voluntary actions in a socially responsible vein from the corporate
sector is likely to lead to, at best, somewhat superficial attempts to respond to
wider societal concerns (Owen and Swift, 2000; Owen et al., 2000). Some form of
regulation of corporate impacts which brings together the disparate pressure
groups companies often feel compelled to respond to may be necessary in order
AAAJ to appease the concerns expressed here regarding the divergent pressure
16,4 groups' demands. Social accountants can have an input here. This could
involve negotiations of the responsibilities companies should comply with
along with the development of mechanisms enabling reporting on the
achievement (or otherwise) of these responsibilities. However, more
worryingly, this broad recommendation for regulation is somewhat at odds
550
with recent European wide discussions of CSR, whereby the European

Commission (EC) has recommended a voluntarist approach to CSR based on
making a strong business case for CSR (Commission of the European
Communities, 2002). Given many of the perspectives presented here, this could
speed up the process of managerial capture of the meaning of CSR in Ireland
and pose a substantial challenge to social accountants' attempts at critical
engagement with corporate managers in this context.
The reforming impetus explicit in social accountants' objectives makes
engagement with corporate management a necessity. The EC report
(Commission of the European Communities, 2002) could be viewed as
representative of an attempt to capture CSR on behalf of business interests.
However, any programme of reform is always going to encounter attempts at
resisting and capturing the elements therein and therefore attempts at
managerial capture should not come as a surprise to those working in the social
accounting field. An analogy with financial accounting is apt, whereby
suggested changes to practice are often backed up by proposed standards and
regulations succeeded with debate and negotiated outcomes. This process can
involve, and has involved, attempts at capturing the debate by certain vested
interests, as well as resistance to this capture and eventual change. Social
accountants as proponents of a society centred CSR conception should not
therefore be deterred by tendencies towards capture, as becoming involved in
debating issues surrounding CSR may eventually lead to some form of
consensual change.
This paper examines 29 perspectives in one context and neglects to focus on
specific instances of managerial capture, particularly with regard to social
accounting initiatives. In order to examine more specifically how managerial
capture works in specific situations, and how to counteract it, future research
needs to focus on examining individual social accounting initiatives aimed at
instigating organisational change on a case study basis (see for example
Larrinaga-Gonzalez and Bebbington, 2001; Larrinaga-Gonzalez et al., 2001).
This will add to the rich data sets that qualitative studies of this nature provide
and may serve to illustrate more clearly the nature of managerial capture and
the dangers it poses to the promotion of society-centred conceptions of CSR.
Furthermore, given the general absence of research into CSR in Ireland, the
nature and extent of societal demands of corporations needs to be examined.
Future research should examine the nature of the obligations and/or
expectations the wider society wishes to impose on business. A clearer
conception of society's requirements when it comes to CSR would help in
instigating or encouraging changes to organisational practices through
negotiation followed by regulation. As a starting point, the expectations of Conceptions of
pressure groups, trade unions, non governmental and governmental corporate social
organisations need to be ascertained in order to enable some consensus to responsibility
develop on what CSR means to those directly impacted by corporations'
activities.
551
Notes
1. Social accounting researchers are not a homogeneous group and the social accounting
project is not homogeneous (Gray, 2002). However, in this paper the term ``social
accountant'' is used to refer to those social accounting researchers who are concerned with
instigating change or reform of corporate (accounting) practices through engagement with
practice for the benefit of the wider society. These researchers view the social accounting
project as being grounded in the principles of democracy and accountability. I am therefore
alluding to proponents of what can be termed ``critical'' social accounting such as Adams
and Harte (2000), Bebbington (1997), Bebbington et al. (1999), Gray (2002), Gray et al. (1987,
1988, 1996, 1997), Harte and Owen (1987), Owen (1996), Owen et al. (1997, 2000, 2001), and
Medawar (1976) among others.
2. Bebbington (1997, p. 366), quoting from the Oxford English Dictionary, notes that to engage
involves `ùrging, exhorting, persuading and inducing people to see a particular point of
view and, in doing so, to win them over as adherents to that point of view''.
3. This literature broadly considers the relationships between business and society and has
emanated primarily from the USA and Canada in academic journals such as: Business and
Society; Business and Society Review; Academy of Management Review; Academy of
Management Journal; Journal of Business Ethics; California Management Review; and
Business Horizons.
4. Two interviewees were not working for public companies at the time the interviews took
place. Of these, one was working for a plc when initially contacted, but had since moved to
a large private company. This interviewee had been in this new post for approximately
four weeks at the date of the interview. The other interviewee's company had, in the
previous five years, been de-listed but the interviewee had been the chairperson of this
company throughout the years it was a quoted company.
5. The interviews also examined perceptions of corporate social disclosure (CSD) (see
O'Dwyer, 2002). These perceptions of CSD tended to lend themselves to examination after
conceptions of CSR had been discussed in detail. However, there were a number of
occasions where interviewees discussed CSD while addressing questions related to CSR.
6. These questions were initially shaped by a review of the CSR literature (particularly the
CSR123 rubric, critiques of this, and the long quest for a corporate social performance
model (see Carroll, 1979, 1991; Clarkson, 1995; Jones, 1983; Wartick and Cochran, 1985;
Wood, 1991a). Detailed discussion with a prominent researcher in the CSR field and
brainstorming sessions with several other researchers (both in Ireland and in the UK)
broadly familiar with the research area being studied also influenced the questions
examined. The interview guide covered issues such as: defining/conceptualising CSR;
motives for the presence and/or absence of CSR (however defined); potential pressures for
CSR; resistance to CSR.
7. Some interviewees contacted me by phone to seek clarification regarding exactly what I
was hoping to achieve in the interviews.
8. During each interview detailed notes were taken, and immediately after each interview
reflections on the interview were taperecorded and written up. These reflections dealt in
particular with the interviewee's demeanour throughout the interview, covering issues
AAAJ such as rapport established, reaction to probing, apparent conviction in responses,
inconsistencies in responses and general attitude to the research issue under study.
16,4
9. For example, throughout the data collection phase, ongoing analysis was aided by:
extensive notes taken during and immediately after interviews; tape-recorded reflections
on interviews; listening to interview tapes while walking and cycling to and from work;
and the recording of an inner dialogue reflecting on the interviews in a separate journal. In
a sense, this involved ``living'' with the data, noting insights as they arose in my mind and
552
constantly freeing my mind to be open to various themes emanating throughout the

process. These notes effectively became my ``memory'' (Baxter and Chua, 1998) and also
included insights challenging any preconceptions I may have held. In effect, they provided
me with a provisional running record of analysis and interpretation.
10. Four interviewees declined to have their interview tape-recorded. Detailed notes were
taken throughout and immediately after these interviews.
11. Each transcript was studied a number of times and any themes emanating were recorded
beside the relevant section of the interview transcript in bright red marker using the set of
intuitively derived codes for each apparent theme (see Miles, 1979; Miles and Huberman,
1994; Patton, 1990). These initial `òpen'' codes were recorded manually in tabular/matrix
form and each code was linked back to the relevant page on each transcript it was derived
from. Using this tabular/matrix format, it was possible to visualise how many times
various codes were identified, both in individual transcripts and in the overall 700 or more
pages of transcription. Subsequently, these codes were further refined and relationships
between the individual `òpen'' codes were developed. Similar `òpen'' codes were aggregated
into what were termed ``core'' codes in order to collapse the numerous individual `òpen''
codes into manageable proportions. The ``core'' codes emerged `às aggregates of the most
closely interrelated (or overlapping) [initial] open codes for which supporting evidence
[wa]s strong'' (Parker and Roffey, 1997, p. 228).
12. However, while recognising that the most common recurring themes in the data were
easily determined using matrices, I was careful to avoid presenting a ``smoothed set of
generalizations that may not apply to a single `ìnterview'' (Huberman and Miles, 1994,
p. 435) and an attempt was made to preserve the uniqueness of certain individual
interviews. These initial matrices were further reformulated in order to discover if
interviewees' industry sector, company size or role had any apparent impact on their
perspectives.
13. In the quotations used in the forthcoming narrative, FD1F refers to finance director 1 who
works in the Banking and Finance sector, CEO1E refers to chief executive officer 1 who
works in the exploration/extractive sector, etc.
14. For more detail on the concept and practice of gainsharing, see Collins (1996).
References
Ackerman, R.W. and Bauer, R.A. (1976), Corporate Social Responsiveness: The Modern Dilemma,
Reston Publishing, Reston, VA.
Adams, C.A. (1999), The Nature and Processes of Corporate Reporting on Ethical Issues, CIMA,
London.
Adams, C.A. (2000), `Èthical reporting: past and future'', Management Accounting, Vol. 78 No. 2,
pp. 48-50.
Adams. C.A. (2002), `Ìnternal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical
reporting: beyond current theorising'', Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 223-50.
Adams, C.A. and Harte, G. (2000), ``Making discrimination visible: the potential for social
accounting'', Accounting Forum, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 56-79.
Alderson, S. and Kakabadse, A. (1994), ``Business ethics and Irish management: a cross-cultural Conceptions of
study'', European Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 432-41.
corporate social
Baxter, J.A. and Chua, W.F. (1998), ``Doing field research: practice and meta-theory in
counterpoint'', Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 69-87. responsibility
Bebbington, J. (1997), `Èngagement, education and sustainability: a review essay on
environmental accounting'', Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 365-81.
553
Bebbington, J., Gray, R.H. and Owen, D.L. (1999), ``Seeing the wood for the trees: taking the pulse
of social and environmental accounting'', Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 47-52.
Bougen, P.D., Young, J.J. and Cahill, E. (1999), `Àccountants and the everyday: or what the
papers said about the Irish accountant and tax evasion'', European Accounting Review,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 443-61.
Bowen, H.R. (1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Bucholz R.A. (1987), ``The business/government/society relationship in management thought'', in
Paul, K. (Ed.), Business Environment and Business Ethics, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Bucholz, R.A. (1991), ``Corporate social eesponsibility and the good society: from economics to
ecology'', Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 19-31.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), `À three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance'',
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), ``The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral
management of organisational stakeholders'', Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 39-48.
Carroll, A.B. (1999), ``Corporate social responsibility'', Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 268-95.
Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995), `À stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Collins, D. (1996), ``How and why participatory management improves a company's social
performance: four gainsharing case studies'', Business and Society, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 176-210.
Commission of the European Communities, (2002), ``Corporate social responsibility: a business
contribution to sustainable development'', available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/
employment_social/soc-dial/csr/csr2002_en.pdf
Davis, K. (1973), ``The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities'',
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 312-22.
Denzin, N.K. (1994), ``The art and politics of interpretation'', in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S.
(Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
(The) Economist (1999), ``Teflon Taoiseach'', The Economist, 16 October, p. 53.
Frederick, W.C. (1986), ``Toward CSR3: why ethical analysis is indispensable and unavoidable in
corporate affairs'', California Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 126-41.
Frederick, W.C. (1987), ``Theories of corporate social performance'', in Sethi, S.P. and Falbe, C.M.
(Eds), Business and Society: Dimensions of Conflict and Co-operation, Lexington, MA,
Toronto.
Frederick, W.C. (1994), ``From CSR1 to CSR2: the maturing of business and society thought'',
Business and Society, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 150-64.
Freeman, R.E. and Gilbert, D.R. (1992), ``Business, ethics and society: a critical agenda'', Business
and Society, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Gardiner, K. (1999), `Ìnto the mystic with EMU'', The Irish Times, 6 January, p. 14.
AAAJ Gray, R.H. (1998), `Ìmagination, a bowl of petunias and social accounting'', Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 205-16.
16,4 Gray, R.H. (2000), ``Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing,
reporting and attestation: a review and comment'', International Journal of Auditing, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 247-68.
Gray, R.H. (2001), ``Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: what (if anything)
have we learnt?'', Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 9-15.
554
Gray, R.H. (2002), ``The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society:
privileging engagement, imagination, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?'',
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 687-708.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Adams, C.A. (1996), Accounting and Accountability: Changes and
Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Prentice-Hall, London.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1987), Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting and
Accountability, Prentice-Hall, London.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1988), ``Corporate social reporting: emerging trends
in accountability and the social contract'', Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 6-20.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, K.J., Walters, D. and Thomson, I. (1995), ``The greening of enterprise: an
exploration of the (non) role of environmental accounting and environmental accountants
in organisational change'', Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 211-39.
Gray, R.H., Dey, C., Owen, D.L., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. (1997), ``Struggling with the praxis of
social accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures'', Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 325-64.
Harte, G. and Owen, D.L. (1987), ``Fighting de-industrialisation: the role of local government
social audits'', Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 123-42.
Hoven Stohs, J.H. and Brannick, T. (1996), `Ìrish managers' perceptions of business ethics'', Irish
Business and Administrative Review, Vol. 17, pp. 83-93.
Hoven Stohs, J. and Brannick, T. (1999), ``Codes and conduct: predictors of Irish managers' ethical
reasoning'', Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 311-26.
Huberman, M. and Miles, M.B. (1994), ``Data management and analysis methods'', in Denzin, N.K.
and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
(The) Irish Times (1998), `Èditorial'', The Irish Times, 4 June, p. 17.
(The) Irish Times (1999), `Èditorial'', The Irish Times, 24 September, p. 15.
Jones, M.T. (1996), ``Missing the forest for the trees: a critique of the social responsibility concept
and discourse'', Business and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 7-41.
Jones, T.M. (1980), ``Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined'', California Management
Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Jones, T.M. (1983), `Àn integrating framework for research in business and society: a step toward
the elusive paradigm?'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 559-64.
King, N. (1998), ``Template analysis'', in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds), Qualitative Methods and
Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage, London.
King, N. (1999), ``The qualitative research interview'', in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds),
Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage, London.
Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. and Bebbington, J. (2001), `Àccounting change or institutional
appropriation? ± a case study of the implementation of environmental accounting'', Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 269-92.
Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., Carrasco-Fenech, F., Caro-Gonzalez, F.J., Correa-Ruiz, C. and
Paez-Sandubete, J.M. (2001), ``The role of environmental accounting in organizational
change: an exploration of Spanish companies'', Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Conceptions of
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 213-39.
corporate social
Lillis, A.M. (1999), `À framework for the analysis of interview data from multiple field sites'',
Accounting and Finance, Vol. 39, pp. 79-105. responsibility
Litz, R.A. (1996), `À resource based view of the socially responsible firm: stakeholder
interdependence, ethical awareness and issue responsiveness as strategic assets'', Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 15, pp. 1355-63. 555
Llewellyn, S. (1999), ``Narratives in accounting and management research'', Accounting, Auditing

& Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 220-36.
McGee, J. (1998), ``Commentary on `corporate strategies and environmental regulations': an
organizing framework'', in Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (Eds), Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 377-87.
McKinnon, J. (1988), ``Reliability and validity in field research: some strategies and tactics'',
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 34-54.
Mathews, M.R. (1993), Socially Responsible Accounting, Chapman & Hall, London.
Maykut, R. and Morehouse, R. (1994), Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophical and
Practical Guide, The Falmer Press, London.
Medawar, C. (1976), ``The social audit: a political view'', Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 389-94.
Miles, M.B. (1979), ``Qualitative data as attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, December, pp. 590-601.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Mitnick, B. (1995), ``Systematics and CSR: the theory and processes of normative referencing'',
Business and Society, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 5-34.
Murphy, P.E. (1994), `Èuropean managers' views on corporate ethics'', Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 137-44.
Murphy, P.E. (1995), ``Top managers' views on corporate ethics'', Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 8,
pp. 61-72.
Nic Ghiolla Phadraig, M. (1995), ``The power of the Catholic Church in the Republic of Ireland'', in
Clancy, P., Drudy, S., Lynch., K. and O'Dowd, L. (Eds), Irish Society: Sociological
Perspectives, IPA, Dublin.
O'Dwyer, B. (2001), ``The legitimacy of accountants' participation in social and ethical
accounting, auditing and reporting'', Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 27-39.
O'Dwyer, B. (2002), ``Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish story'',
O'Toole, F. (1999), ``The treason of the elite in a culture of corruption'', The Irish Times, 2 October,
p. 14.
Owen, D.L. (1996), `À critical perspective on the development of European environmental
accounting and reporting'', in Hibbett, C. and Blokdisk (Eds), Environmental Accounting
and Sustainable Development, Limperg Instituut, Amsterdam.
Owen D.L. and Swift, T. (2001), ``Social accounting, reporting and auditing: beyond the rhetoric?'',
Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-8.
Owen, D.L., Gray, R.H. and Bebbington, J. (1997), ``Green accounting: cosmetic irrelevance or
radical agenda for change?'', Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting, Vol. 4 No. 2, December,
pp. 175-98.
AAAJ Owen, D.L., Swift, T.A. and Hunt, K. (2001), ``Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in
social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting'', Accounting Forum, Vol. 25 No. 3,
16,4 pp. 264-82.
Owen, D.L., Swift, T., Humphrey, C., Bowerman, M. (2000), ``The new social audits:
accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions?'', European
Accounting Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 81-98.
Parker, L.D. and Roffey, B.H. (1997), ``Methodological themes: back to the drawing board:
556
revisiting grounded theory and the everyday accountant's and manager's reality'',
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Post, J.E. (1978), Corporate Behavior and Social Change, Reston Publishing, Reston, VA.
Power, M. (1991), `Àuditing and environmental expertise: between protest and professionalisation'',
Preston, L.E. (1975), ``Corporation and society: the search for a paradigm'', Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol. 13, pp. 434-53.
Preston, L.E. and Post, J.E. (1975), Private Management and Public Policy: The Principle of Public
Responsibility, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Puxty, A.G. (1986), ``Social accounting as immanent legitimation: a critique of a technicist
ideology'', Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 1, pp. 95-111.
Puxty, A.G. (1991), ``Social accountability and universal pragmatics'', Advances in Public Interest
Accounting, Vol. 4, pp. 35-45.
Sethi, S.P. (1979), `À conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and
evaluation of business response patterns'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 63-74.
Shepard, J.M., Betz, M. and O' Connell, L. (1997), ``The proactive corporation: its nature and
causes'', Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, pp. 1001-10.
Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, Sage, London.
Smith, J.M. (1972), Interviewing in Social and Market Research, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
Solomon, R. (1992), Ethics and Excellence, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Steiner, A.G. (1975), Business and Society, Random House, New York, NY.
Sweeney, P. (1998), The Celtic Tiger: Ireland's Economic Miracle Explained, Oak Tree Press,
Dublin.
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. (1984), Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Tinker, A.M., Lehman, C. and Neimark, M. (1991), ``Falling down the hole in the middle of the road:
political quietism in corporate social reporting'', Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 28-54.
Votaw, D. (1972), ``Genius becomes rare'', in Votaw, D. and Sethi, S.P. (Eds), The Corporate
Dilemma, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Wartick, S.L. and Cochran, P.L. (1985), ``The evolution of the corporate social performance model'',
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 758-69.
Wood, D.J. (1991a), ``Corporate social performance revisited'', Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 691-718.
Wood, D.J. (1991b), ``Toward improving corporate social performance'', Business Horizons,
July-August, pp. 66-73.
Further reading Conceptions of
Anshen, M. (1983), ``Changing the social contract: a role for business'', in Beauchamp, T.L. and corporate social
Bowie, N.E. (Eds), Ethical Theory and Business, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ansoff, H.L. (1990), Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
responsibility
Bebbington, J. and Thomson, I. (1996), Business Conceptions of Sustainability and The Implications
for Accountancy, ACCA, London.
557
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), `Ìntroduction: entering the field of qualitative research'', in
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Jones, M.T. (1999), ``The institutional determinants of social responsibility'', Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 20, pp. 163-79.
Jones, S. (1985), ``The analysis of depth interviews'', in Walker, R. (Ed.), Applied Qualitative
Research, Gower, Aldershot.
Mintzberg, H. (1983), ``The case for corporate social responsibility'', The Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 3-15.
Sethi, S.P. (1977), ``Dimensions of corporate social performance: an analytical framework'', in
Carroll, A.B. (Ed.), Managing Corporate Social Responsibility, Little Brown & Company,
Boston, MA.
Stone, C.D. (1975), Where the Law Ends, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
This article has been cited by:
1. Linda O’Riordan, Jenny Fairbrass. 2014. Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual
Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 125, 121-145. [CrossRef]
2. Mª Jesús Bonilla-Priego, Xavier Font, Mª del Rosario Pacheco-Olivares. 2014. Corporate sustainability
reporting index and baseline data for the cruise industry. Tourism Management 44, 149-160. [CrossRef]
3. Jasmine Tata, Sameer Prasad. 2014. CSR Communication: An Impression Management Perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
4. Matthew Egan. 2014. Driving Water Management Change Where Economic Incentive is Limited. Journal
of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
5. Benedict Sheehy. 2014. Defining CSR: Problems and Solutions. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
6. Ben JacobsenIncreasing the effectiveness of SRI corporate engagement on climate change through a
responsive regulation framework 149-171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
9. Ian Thomson. 2014. ‘But does sustainability need capitalism or an integrated report’ a commentary on
‘The International Integrated Reporting Council: A story of failure’ by Flower, J. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting . [CrossRef]
10. Stefania Veltri. 2014. Do Stakeholder Expectations Shape Organizational Intellectual Capital Reports?.
Knowledge and Process Management 21:10.1002/kpm.v21.3, 177-186. [CrossRef]
11. Matthew Egan. 2014. Progress towards institutionalising field-wide water efficiency change. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal 27:5, 809-833. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Arzu Özsözgün Çalişkan. 2014. How accounting and accountants may contribute in sustainability?. Social
Responsibility Journal 10:2, 246-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Jean-Noël Chauvey, Sophie Giordano-Spring, Charles H. Cho, Dennis M. Patten. 2014. The Normativity
and Legitimacy of CSR Disclosure: Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
14. Ian Thomson, Suzana Grubnic, Georgios Georgakopoulos. 2014. Exploring accounting-sustainability
hybridisation in the UK public sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society . [CrossRef]
15. Egan Matthew. 2014. Making water count: water accountability change within an Australian university.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27:2, 259-282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Tiina Onkila, Kristiina Joensuu, Marileena Koskela. 2014. Implications of Managerial Framing of
Stakeholders in Environmental Reports. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 1-23. [CrossRef]
17. Wendy Stubbs, Colin Higgins, Markus Milne. 2013. Why Do Companies Not Produce Sustainability
Reports?. Business Strategy and the Environment 22:10.1002/bse.v22.7, 456-470. [CrossRef]
18. Christian Herzig, Jeremy Moon. 2013. Discourses on corporate social ir/responsibility in the financial
sector. Journal of Business Research 66, 1870-1880. [CrossRef]
19. Elisabetta Barone, Nathan Ranamagar, Jill F. Solomon. 2013. A Habermasian model of stakeholder
(non)engagement and corporate (ir)responsibility reporting. Accounting Forum 37, 163-181. [CrossRef]
20. Jane Andrew, Corinne Cortese. 2013. Free market environmentalism and the neoliberal project: The case
of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24, 397-409. [CrossRef]
21. Kala Saravanamuthu, Cheryl Lehman. 2013. Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental
risk accounts. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24, 410-437. [CrossRef]
22. Haslinda Yusoff, Radiah Othman, Normahiran Yatim. 2013. Culture and Accountants' Perceptions of
Environmental Reporting Practice. Business Strategy and the Environment n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
23. Rania Kamla, Hussain G. Rammal. 2013. Social reporting by Islamic banks: does social justice matter?.
24. Julia Mundy, Carys A. Owen. 2013. The Use of an ERP System to Facilitate Regulatory Compliance.
Information Systems Management 30, 182-197. [CrossRef]
25. Gordon Liu, Teck-Yong Eng, Wai-Wai Ko. 2013. Strategic Direction of Corporate Community
Involvement. Journal of Business Ethics 115, 469-487. [CrossRef]
26. Michael Jones, Jill Solomon, Gunnar Rimmel, Kristina Jonäll. 2013. Biodiversity reporting in Sweden:
corporate disclosure and preparers' views. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:5, 746-778.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Michael Jones, Jill Solomon, Thomas Cuckston. 2013. Bringing tropical forest biodiversity conservation
into financial accounting calculation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:5, 688-714.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Anna Lee Rowe, Margaret Nowak, Mohammed Quaddus, Marita Naude. 2013. Stakeholder Engagement
and Sustainable Corporate Community Investment. Business Strategy and the Environment n/a-n/a.
[CrossRef]
29. Mahmood Ahmed Momin. 2013. Social and environmental NGOs’ perceptions of Corporate Social
Disclosures: The Case of Bangladesh. Accounting Forum 37, 150-161. [CrossRef]
30. Wen Qu, Philomena Leung, Barry Cooper. 2013. A study of voluntary disclosure of listed Chinese firms
– a stakeholder perspective. Managerial Auditing Journal 28:3, 261-294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Judy Brown, Jesse Dillard. 2013. Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the “death of environmentalism”
debates. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24, 1-18. [CrossRef]
32. José A. Moseñe, Roger L. Burritt, M. Victoria Sanagustín, José M. Moneva, Joanne Tingey-Holyoak.
2013. Environmental reporting in the Spanish wind energy sector: an institutional view. Journal of Cleaner
Production 40, 199-211. [CrossRef]
33. Gary Fooks, Anna Gilmore, Jeff Collin, Chris Holden, Kelley Lee. 2013. The Limits of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Techniques of Neutralization, Stakeholder Management and Political CSR. Journal of
Business Ethics 112, 283-299. [CrossRef]
34. Melissa Gordon, Michael Lockwood, Frank Vanclay, Dallas Hanson, Jacki Schirmer. 2012. Divergent
stakeholder views of corporate social responsibility in the Australian forest plantation sector. Journal of
Environmental Management 113, 390-398. [CrossRef]
35. Paolo Perego, Ans Kolk. 2012. Multinationals’ Accountability on Sustainability: The Evolution of Third-
party Assurance of Sustainability Reports. Journal of Business Ethics 110, 173-190. [CrossRef]
36. Giovanna Michelon. 2012. Sustainability Disclosure and Reputation: A Comparative Study. Corporate
Reputation Review 14, 79-96. [CrossRef]
37. Helen Tregidga, Markus Milne, Glen Lehman. 2012. Analyzing the quality, meaning and accountability
of organizational reporting and communication: Directions for future research. Accounting Forum 36,
223-230. [CrossRef]
38. Colin Higgins, Robyn Walker. 2012. Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental
reports. Accounting Forum 36, 194-208. [CrossRef]
39. Amanda Ball, Vernon Soare, Joanna Brewis. 2012. Engagement Research in Public Sector Accounting.
Financial Accountability & Management 28:10.1111/faam.2012.28.issue-2, 189-214. [CrossRef]
40. Chung-Fah Huang, Ho-Chi Lien. 2012. An empirical analysis of the influences of corporate social
responsibility on organizational performance of Taiwan’s construction industry: using corporate image as
a mediator. Construction Management and Economics 30, 263-275. [CrossRef]
41. Laura J. Spence, Leonardo Rinaldi. 2012. Governmentality in accounting and accountability: A case study
of embedding sustainability in a supply chain. Accounting, Organizations and Society . [CrossRef]

42. Claire Gillet. 2012. A study of sustainability verification practices: the French case. Journal of Accounting
& Organizational Change 8:1, 62-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Collins C. Ngwakwe. 2012. Rethinking the accounting stance on sustainable development. Sustainable
Development 20:10.1002/sd.v20.1, 28-41. [CrossRef]
44. Markus J. Milne, Suzana Grubnic, Jill F. Solomon, Aris Solomon, Simon D. Norton, Nathan L. Joseph.
2011. Private climate change reporting: an emerging discourse of risk and opportunity?. Accounting,
45. Collins C. Ngwakwe. 2011. Towards an understanding of the influence of sustainability culture on the
accounting profession. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 18, 442-452.
[CrossRef]
46. Moritz Von Schwedler. 2011. CSR in the UK Water Industry: ‘Doing the Right Thing’? A Case Study.
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 31, 125-137. [CrossRef]
47. Pablo Archel, Javier Husillos, Crawford Spence. 2011. The institutionalisation of unaccountability:
Loading the dice of Corporate Social Responsibility discourse. Accounting, Organizations and Society 36,
327-343. [CrossRef]
48. Fernando Azcárate, Francisco Carrasco, Manuel Fernández. 2011. The role of integrated indicators in
exhibiting business contribution to sustainable development: a survey of sustainability reporting initiatives.
Revista de Contabilidad 14, 213-240. [CrossRef]
49. Manuel Fernández Chulián. 2011. Constructing new accountants: the role of sustainability education.
Revista de Contabilidad 14, 241-265. [CrossRef]
50. Folake Olowokudejo, S.A. Aduloju, S.A. Oke. 2011. Corporate social responsibility and organizational
effectiveness of insurance companies in Nigeria. The Journal of Risk Finance 12:3, 156-167. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
51. Chris Mason, John Simmons. 2011. Forward looking or looking unaffordable? Utilising academic
perspectives on corporate social responsibility to assess the factors influencing its adoption by business.
Business Ethics: A European Review 20:10.1111/beer.2011.20.issue-2, 159-176. [CrossRef]
52. Tiago Melo, Jose Ignacio Galan. 2011. Effects of corporate social responsibility on brand value. Journal
of Brand Management 18, 423-437. [CrossRef]
53. Maria Jesús Bonilla Priego, Juan José Najera, Xavier Font. 2011. Environmental management decision-
making in certified hotels. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19, 361-381. [CrossRef]
54. John Smith, Ros Haniffa, Jenny Fairbrass. 2011. A Conceptual Framework for Investigating ‘Capture’ in
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Assurance. Journal of Business Ethics 99, 425-439. [CrossRef]
55. Max Baker, John Roberts. 2011. All in the Mind? Ethical Identity and the Allure of Corporate
Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 101, 5-15. [CrossRef]
56. Javier Husillos, Carlos Larrinaga González, María José Álvarez Gil. 2011. The emergence of triple bottom
line reporting in Spain. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y
Contabilidad 40, 195-219. [CrossRef]
57. Roger L. Burritt, Stefan Schaltegger, Max Baker. 2010. Re‐conceiving managerial capture. Accounting,
58. Heidi Sundin, Laurence Wainwright. 2010. Approaches to integrating social and environmental accounting
(SEA) into accounting majors in Australian universities. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal
30, 80-95. [CrossRef]
59. Teresa Eugénio, Isabel Costa Lourenço, Ana Isabel Morais. 2010. Recent developments in social and
environmental accounting research. Social Responsibility Journal 6:2, 286-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Lai Hong Chung, Lee D. Parker. 2010. Managing social and environmental action and accountability in
the hospitality industry: A Singapore perspective. Accounting Forum 34, 46-53. [CrossRef]
61. Hannele Mäkelä, Salme Näsi. 2010. Social responsibilities of MNCs in downsizing operations. Accounting,
62. Crawford Spence, Javier Husillos, Carmen Correa-Ruiz. 2010. Cargo cult science and the death of politics:
A critical review of social and environmental accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21,
76-89. [CrossRef]
63. Ulla Kotonen. 2009. Formal corporate social responsibility reporting in Finnish listed companies. Journal
of Applied Accounting Research 10:3, 176-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Haslinda Yusoff, Glen Lehman. 2009. Corporate environmental reporting through the lens of semiotics.
Asian Review of Accounting 17:3, 226-246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Azlan Amran, A.K. Siti‐Nabiha. 2009. Corporate social reporting in Malaysia: a case of mimicking the
West or succumbing to local pressure. Social Responsibility Journal 5:3, 358-375. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
66. Professor Jan Bell, Professor Zahirul Hoque, Matthew Egan. 2009. Sydney water sector change and
industrial water management. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 5:2, 277-293. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
67. Crawford Spence. 2009. Social and environmental reporting and the corporate ego. Business Strategy and
the Environment 18:10.1002/bse.v18:4, 254-265. [CrossRef]
68. Paolo Maccarrone. 2009. Factors influencing the attitude towards corporate social responsibility: some
empirical evidence from Italy. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 9:2,
103-119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Judy Brown. 2009. Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism
seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20, 313-342. [CrossRef]
70. Crawford Spence. 2009. Social accounting's emancipatory potential: A Gramscian critique. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 20, 205-227. [CrossRef]
71. Marie‐Andrée Caron, Marie‐France B. Turcotte. 2009. Path dependence and path creation. Accounting,
72. Carol A. Adams, Glen Whelan. 2009. Conceptualising future change in corporate sustainability reporting.
73. Rob Gray, Dave Owen, Carol AdamsSome theories for social accounting?: A review essay and a tentative
pedagogic categorisation of theorisations around social accounting 1-54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF]
74. Carol A. Adams, Geoffrey R. Frost. 2008. Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices.
Accounting Forum 32, 288-302. [CrossRef]
75. Kate Grosser, Jeremy Moon. 2008. Developments in company reporting on workplace gender equality?.
76. William E. Shafer, Richard S. Simmons. 2008. Social responsibility, Machiavellianism and tax avoidance.
77. Azlan Amran, S. Susela Devi. 2008. The impact of government and foreign affiliate influence on corporate
social reporting. Managerial Auditing Journal 23:4, 386-404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Lorraine Sweeney, Joseph Coughlan. 2008. Do different industries report Corporate Social Responsibility
differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications
14, 113-124. [CrossRef]
79. Jan Bebbington, Carlos Larrinaga, Jose M. Moneva. 2008. Corporate social reporting and reputation risk
management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21:3, 337-361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
80. Carol A. Adams. 2008. A commentary on: corporate social responsibility reporting and reputation risk
management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21:3, 365-370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. Lee Parker, James Guthrie, Markus Milne, David Owen. 2008. Chronicles of wasted time?. Accounting,
82. Jane Gibbon, Arthur Affleck. 2008. Social enterprise resisting social accounting: reflecting on lived
experiences. Social Enterprise Journal 4:1, 41-56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Gordon Boyce. 2008. The social relevance of ethics education in a global(ising) era: From individual
dilemmas to systemic crises. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19, 255-290. [CrossRef]
84. Pablo Archel, Manuel Fernández, Carlos Larrinaga. 2008. The Organizational and Operational Boundaries
of Triple Bottom Line Reporting: A Survey. Environmental Management 41, 106-117. [CrossRef]
85. Ans Kolk, Paolo Perego. 2008. Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: an
international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
86. Juliane Riese. 2007. “Thou Shalt not be Good Enough”: (Mis)understanding CSR. Social Responsibility
Journal 3:4, 15-20. [Abstract] [PDF]
87. Sue Llewellyn, Markus J. Milne, Crawford Spence. 2007. Social and environmental reporting and
hegemonic discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 20:6, 855-882. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
88. Stuart M. Cooper, David L. Owen. 2007. Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The
missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society 32, 649-667. [CrossRef]
89. Daniel Silberhorn, Richard C. Warren. 2007. Defining corporate social responsibility. European Business
Review 19:5, 352-372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. Glen Lehman. 2007. The accountability of NGOs in civil society and its public spheres. Critical Perspectives
on Accounting 18, 645-669. [CrossRef]
91. Michelle Greenwood. 2007. Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility.
Journal of Business Ethics 74, 315-327. [CrossRef]
92. Shirley‐Ann Hazlett, Rodney McAdam, Amrik Sohal, Shirley‐Ann Hazlett, Rodney McAdam, Lisa
Murray. 2007. From quality management to socially responsible organisations: the case for CSR.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 24:7, 669-682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Jeffrey UnermanStakeholder engagement and dialogue 86-103. [CrossRef]
94. Suzana Grubnic, Amanda BallSustainability accounting and accountability in the public sector 243-265.
[CrossRef]
95. Jan BebbingtonChanging organizational attitudes and culture through sustainability accounting 226-242.
[CrossRef]
96. Carol A. Adams, Carlos Larrinaga‐González, Carol A. Adams, Patty McNicholas. 2007. Making a
difference. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 20:3, 382-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
97. Carol. A. Adams, Carlos Larrinaga‐González, Ataur Rahman Belal, David L. Owen. 2007. The views
of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh.
98. Carol A. Adams, Carlos Larrinaga‐González, Esther Albelda Pérez, Carmen Correa Ruiz, Francisco
Carrasco Fenech. 2007. Environmental management systems as an embedding mechanism: a research note.
99. Carol A. Adams, Carlos Larrinage‐González, Colin Dey. 2007. Social accounting at Traidcraft plc.
100. Carol A. Adams, Carlos Larrinaga‐González, Carol A. Adams, Carlos Larrinaga‐González. 2007. Engaging
with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal 20:3, 333-355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Dan F. Ofori, Robert E. Hinson. 2007. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) perspectives of leading firms
in Ghana. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 7:2, 178-193. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
102. Jeff Everett. 2007. Fear, desire, and lack in Deegan and Soltys's “Social accounting research: An Australasian
perspective”. Accounting Forum 31, 91-97. [CrossRef]
103. Y. Sumiani, Y. Haslinda, G. Lehman. 2007. Environmental reporting in a developing country: a case study
on status and implementation in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 895-901. [CrossRef]
104. Rania Kamla. 2007. Critically Appreciating Social Accounting and Reporting in the Arab MiddleEast: A
Postcolonial Perspective. Advances in International Accounting 20, 105-177. [CrossRef]
105. Jill Frances Solomon, Aris Solomon. 2006. Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure. Accounting,
106. Helen Tregidga, Markus J. Milne. 2006. From sustainable management to sustainable development:
a longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy and the
Environment 15:10.1002/bse.v15:4, 219-241. [CrossRef]
107. Haslinda Yusoff, Glen Lehman, Noraini Mohd Nasir. 2006. Environmental engagements through the lens
of disclosure practices. Asian Review of Accounting 14:1/2, 122-148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
108. Wen Qu, Philomena Leung. 2006. Cultural impact on Chinese corporate disclosure – a corporate
governance perspective. Managerial Auditing Journal 21:3, 241-264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. Judy Brown, Michael Fraser. 2006. Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: an
overview of the conceptual landscape. Business Strategy and the Environment 15:10.1002/bse.v15:2, 103-117.
[CrossRef]
110. Catherine Cassell, Bill Lee, Christopher Humphrey. 2006. More than a numbers game: qualitative research
in accounting. Management Decision 44:2, 180-197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
111. Brendan O’Dwyer, Grainne Madden. 2006. Ethical Codes of Conduct in Irish Companies: A Survey of
Code Content and Enforcement Procedures. Journal of Business Ethics 63, 217-236. [CrossRef]
112. Carol Ann Tilt. 2006. Linking environmental activity and environmental disclosure in an organisational
change framework. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 2:1, 4-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
113. Sunee Ratanajongkol, Howard Davey, Mary Low. 2006. Corporate social reporting in Thailand.
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 3:1, 67-83. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. Lee D. Parker. 2005. Social and environmental accountability research. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 18:6, 842-860. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
115. Matias Laine. 2005. Meanings of the term ‘sustainable development’ in Finnish corporate disclosures.
116. Brendan O'Dwyer. 2005. The construction of a social account: a case study in an overseas aid agency.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 30, 279-296. [CrossRef]
117. Brendan O'Dwyer, Jeffrey Unerman, John Bradley. 2005. Perceptions on the emergence and future
development of corporate social disclosure in Ireland. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 18:1,
14-43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Lee Parker, James Guthrie. 2005. Welcome to “the rough and tumble”. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 18:1, 5-13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
119. David Owen. 2005. CSR after Enron: A Role for the academic accounting profession?. European Accounting
Review 14, 395-404. [CrossRef]
120. Brendan O'Dwyer. 2005. Stakeholder democracy: challenges and contributions from social accounting.
Business Ethics: A European Review 14:10.1111/beer.2005.14.issue-1, 28-41. [CrossRef]
121. Brendan O'Dwyer, Jeffrey Unerman, Elaine Hession. 2005. User needs in sustainability reporting:
Perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland. European Accounting Review 14, 759-787. [CrossRef]
122. Gweneth Norris, Brendan O'Dwyer. 2004. Motivating socially responsive decision making: the operation
of management controls in a socially responsive organisation. The British Accounting Review 36, 173-196.
[CrossRef]
123. Brendan O'DwyerQualitative Data Analysis: Illuminating a Process for Transforming a ‘Messy’ but
‘Attractive’ ‘Nuisance’ 391-407. [CrossRef]

ARTICULO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICULO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICULO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture

To cite this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Conceptions of corporate Conceptions of

nature of managerial capture

furnished. This precedes a detailed narrative examining the managerial

Social accountants' conception of corporate social responsibility

number of broad, open-ended questions guided the interviews, which were

Banking and finance F 5 0 1 1 2 9

Managerial conceptions of corporate social responsibility

The recognition of ``social'' responsibilities

A number of managers indicated that prior to being approached for interviews,

Rationalising managerial conceptions of CSR

Managerial capture ± controlling the CSR agenda. This rationale

Managers in the exploration/extractive, printing, and retail and leisure sectors

For example, corporate involvement in community activities was perceived as

The physically fixed nature of many exploration/extractive operations meant

Initially, prior to extensive probing, there was a general unwillingness to

One highly experienced chairperson of a number of Irish plcs expressed the

One chairperson indicated how a company she was involved with as a

While these rationales illustrate a certain, albeit reluctant, willingness to

There were few pressures from shareholders or fund institutions to become

These managers were extremely keen to emphasise their lack of personal

Ten of these 12 managers gave vent to expressions of regret at these corporate

conception of CSR. However, given structural pressures, it was perceived that

within this rationale is also illuminated.

Rationale 2 ± reactive enlightened self interest

sectors. Managers in all sectors tended to be very sensitive to local community

A reactive, responsive approach to various social pressures was deemed

He voiced concern at being ``mandated to by a quango''. Two managers in the

The overall attitude to the varying pressures implied that companies

According to 13 managers from all sectors, the necessity of responding to

These perspectives reflect a certain reluctance to willingly engage with

One finance director was openly critical of the exploration/extractive industry's

Explicit in these perspectives was a sense of a broad quasi moral duty

social responsibilities emphasises managers' desire to discuss obligations

This apparent notion of obligations due irrespective of economic success was,

perspectives which, as outlined earlier, some managers seemed slightly

One CEO in the exploration/extractive sector was adamant regarding

Another CEO in this sector contended that company responsibilities reflected

There was a clear sense that obligations existed regardless of economic

do, it is very hard to see a direct business [benefit] (M2F).

While these perspectives provide some evidence of capture resistance, they

half a million pounds to [name of university] if we did not have it (FD1M).

One chairman, while claiming to recognise ``fundamental'' obligations to

Discussion and conclusions

Bebbington, 2001; Larrinaga-Gonzalez et al., 2001). By concentrating on

Once managers moved beyond conceptualising the concept as a means towards

with recent European wide discussions of CSR, whereby the European

constantly freeing my mind to be open to various themes emanating throughout the

Llewellyn, S. (1999), ``Narratives in accounting and management research'', Accounting, Auditing

of embedding sustainability in a supply chain. Accounting, Organizations and Society . [CrossRef]

You might also like