By Frank de Bakker, Peter Groenewegen & Frank den Hond
Blog Editor’s note: The authors’ paper, “A Bibliometric Analysis of 30 Years of Research and Theory on Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Performance” , is open access until December 31st 2021 as part of the journal’s 60th anniversary celebrations.
Why did we review the literature on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Social Performance (CSP)? Almost two decades ago, we found ourselves wondering about the huge variety in concepts, approaches and theories surrounding the omnipresent notions of CSR and CSP. Dow Votaw, as early as in 1973, noted that the concept of CSR “means something, but not always the same thing, to everybody.” Just after the turn of the century, Votaw’s words rang true for us, despite decades of research on CSR, CSP and related concepts. We therefore decided to satisfy our curiosity through a bibliometric analysis that eventually was published in Business & Society in 2005 – and this is now one of the most cited papers from the journal. In this post, we reflect on our experiences: we briefly describe the review article and then deliberate on its reception and uptake.
Reviewing CSR/CSP
As with all literature reviews, defining its scope and objective was an important starting point. We set out to examine the intellectual structure of the fields of CSR/CSP. We therefore analysed the epistemological orientation of papers in this field over a 30-year period and complemented this with text analysis to deepen our insight. We distinguished between theoretical, prescriptive and descriptive papers and identified three possible views on the CSR/CSP literature:
- Progression: development occurred from conceptual vagueness, through clarification of central constructs and their relationships, to the testing of theory—a process supported by increased sophistication in research methods. The development of measures for CSP and the subsequent testing of CSP-hypotheses are examples of this view.
- Variegation: progress in the literature on the social responsibilities of business is obscured or even hampered by the continuing introduction of new constructs. Examples of new constructs included stakeholder thinking, corporate citizenship or social accountability.
- Normativism: hardly any progress could be expected because of the inherently normative character of the CSR/CSP literature. The focus is on providing prescription (means, ideas, recipes for action) to practitioners and professionals on how to be ‘socially responsible’, or on arguing why adhering to CSR is the morally right thing to do.
Based on our analyses, we concluded that there was less normative work than one might expect but that both progression and variegation views were clearly supported: CSR gradually seemed to have arrived as a serious concept in management literature, but new forms, versions and variants were often introduced. Although the field clearly had developed, it was not looking stable yet. And in many ways, that is probably still the case.
Since then, our appreciation and perspective of the field have changed. For one, the field has become more diverse and thereby in many ways more interesting. For example, a focus on institutional aspects, the introduction of critical perspectives on CSR, or viewing CSR as constructed, constituted or contested, be it in discourses, in communication, or in collaborative or antagonistic interactions.
For another, we would no longer take ‘progression’ as the measure or standard against which we assessed ‘variegation’ and ‘normativism’. We now feel quite uncomfortable with this terminology; as if ‘progression’, in the sense of cumulative knowledge, is the touchstone for research, whether on CSR, in Business & Society, or beyond; as if there is no inherent, positive value in the ‘variegation’ that ‘umbrella advocates’ (i.e., researchers with a broad perspective) introduce; as if it isn’t the case that all research is grounded on normative assumptions (explicitly or implicitly); and as if the very question of whether CSR and CSP are useful concepts in the normative debate about the role and expectations of companies in society, hinders ‘progression’ aimed at scientific advancement within an established paradigm or explanatory framework.
Impact
When we look back at this article, more than 15 years later, we note that it continues to be cited frequently. However, when we consider those citations, it is striking to see that only part of these citations engage with the ideas we presented. The article often also seems to be cited ceremonially: a token reference to support claims that CSR is often studied, has been studied for a long time, or has been studied from different angles. Another group of papers cite the paper for its bibliometric methods. The combination of bibliometric and textual methods of analysis is cited frequently in a broad range of fields, from integrated manufacturing to health behaviour. In a follow-up research note, we highlighted some problems with using bibliometric research to review research fields and underlined why nevertheless such studies are useful. Finally, a more practical reason for the frequent citations might be that, at least for a while, the article provided the reader with a starting list of “most relevant” papers. Apparently, review articles, too, can mean something, but do not always mean the same thing, to everybody.
Field dynamics
In hindsight, our study was an effort to understand the dynamics of a field in development, an effort that with currently available tools can probably be done in a more sophisticated manner. Bibliometric reviewing now has evolved into a specialism within management research itself. As the CSR literature has expanded exponentially, it might be relevant to update our study with all the work that appeared since 2003 (i.e., when our data-collection ended). Although several other review articles on CSR have indeed been published since 2005, they all made different choices in terms of methods, scope and focus, which is not surprising, given the continued differentiation in the field. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see new reviews that consider the field dynamics surrounding CSR and CSP, for example, whether there has been an increase in emphasis on outcomes of CSR (i.e., on social performance) as opposed to nearly 20 years ago.