Paper: CSR: A Process Model of Sensemaking (Basu & Palazzo 2008) Flashcards
General Description Basu+Palazzo
Authors propose a model of sensemaking explaining how managers think, discuss, and act with respect to their key stakeholders and the world at large. They also propose a set of cognitive, linguistic, and conative dimensions to identify such an intrinsic orientation that guides CSR-related activities. Recognizing patterns of interrelationships among these dimensions might lead to a better understanding of a firm’s CSR impact.
Background
3 fundamental lines of CSR inquiry:
- Stakeholder driven: CSR as a response to demand of stakeholders (e.g. government, NGOs, …)
- Performance driven
- Motivation driven
=> Emphasis on content of CSR activities (analyzing CSR by examining CSR), rather than focus on internal determinants such as mental frames and sensemaking processes (i.e. how an organization makes sense of its world)
Sensemaking involves a tripartite view of processes:
1) Cognitive
2) Linguistic
3) Conative
Cognitive view
implies thinking about the organization´s relationships with its stakeholders and views about the broader world (i.e. the “common good” that goes beyond what’s good for business)
=> What firms think
Linguistic view
how the organization explains reasons for engaging in specific activities to others
=> What firms say
Conative view
(behavioral disposition = Verhaltensneigung): involves the behavioral posture, the commitment and consistency it shows in conducting activities that impinge on its relationships
=> How firms tend to behave
Sensemaking process
= What a firm thinks, says and tends to do in relation to others
Authors definition of CSR
The process by which managers within an organization think about and discuss relationships with stakeholders as well as their roles in relation to the common good, along with their behavioral disposition with respect to the fulfillment and achievement of these roles and relationships.”
dimensions (plus their characteristics) of the Cognitive View (what firms think)
1) Identity Orientation: Individualistic, Relational, Collectivistic
2) Legitimacy: Pragmatic, Cognitive, Moral
dimensions (plus their characteristics) of the Linguistic View (what firms say)
1) Justification: Legal, Scientific, Economic, Ethical
2) Transparency: Balanced, Biased
dimensions (plus their characteristics) of the Conative View (how firms tend to behave)
1) Posture: Defensive, Tentative, Open
2) Consistency: Strategically inconsistent, Strategically consistent, Internally inconsistent, Internally consistent,
3) Commitment: Instrumental, Normative
Cognitive View:
Identity Orientation = ?
= shared sets of beliefs, values and norms that bind people together and help them to make sense of their worlds. These shared perceptions constitute the identity of an organization (“who we are”).
write: regarding their identity, manager/firms view themselves and their organization in individualistic/ relational/ collectivistic terms because
Cognitive View:
=> Identity Orientation
==> Individualistic = ?
This orientation emphasizes individual liberty and self-interest, building on an “atomized” entity that is distinct and separate from others. Such organizations might describe themselves e.g. as “the best in business”.
=> firm might choose activities where they can showcase their performance
Cognitive View:
=> Identity Orientation
==> Relational = ?
Organizations see themselves as being partners in relationships with their stakeholders; displaying strong personal ties; e.g. “we are committed to our customers”.
=> firm might choose activities to build networks/relationships (e.g. donate to charity that is favored by employees to secure their loyalty)
Cognitive View:
=> Identity Orientation
==> Collectivistic = ?
Organizations see themselves as members of larger groups that go beyond simply the stakeholders most relevant to their immediate businesses, processing generalized ties to one another; e.g. use terms such as “we strive for a sustainable world”.
=> might choose to address environmental or social issues, e.g. global warming
Cognitive View:
Legitimacy = ?
the perceived need to gain acceptance in society, especially among stakeholders (i.e. legitimacy for their actions), leads organizations to strive for compliance with some socially constructed systems of norms, values, beliefs and definitions
(Pragmatic, Cognitive, Moral)
write like: manager/firms try to gain pragmatic/cognitive/moral legitimacy for their actions as they …
Cognitive View:
=> Legitimacy
==> Pragmatic = ?
Organization convinces stakeholders of the usefulness of its decisions, products, or processes (assumption: firm can substantially control its environment; managing legitimacy as a resource)
=> e.g. with campaigns showing conformity with social norms
Cognitive View:
=> Legitimacy
==> Cognitive = ?
A firm aligns its actions to be congruent with perceived societal expectations to gain cognitive legitimacy (assumption: environment controls the firm with legitimization resulting from successful adaptation of external demand)
Cognitive View:
=> Legitimacy
==> Moral = ?
Organizations try to gain moral legitimacy by co-creating acceptable norms of behavior with relevant stakeholders (assumption: under conditions of extreme uncertainty due to fundamental social changes)
Linguistic View:
Justification = ?
how organizations justify their actions to others; reflecting how they interpret their relationships with stakeholders and view their broader responsibilities to society
(Legal, Scientific, Economic, Ethical ;
legal, scientific and economic justification has been criticized as it aims at silencing critics instead of facilitating dialogue)
Linguistic View:
=> Justification
==> Legal = ?
To gain legal justification, an organization provides officially permitted arguments in support of its actions in response to accusations by its critics
Linguistic View:
=> Justification
==> Scientific = ?
For scientific justification, a firm claims expertise in the measurement of relevant aspects of its behavior/impact or relies on the verdict of “neutral experts” to defend itself against criticism
Linguistic View:
=> Justification
==> Economic = ?
to gain economic justification, a firm highlights tangible contributions to stakeholders (e.g. creation of jobs, taxes paid, …) in defense of its actions
Linguistic View:
=> Justification
==> Ethical = ?
an organization explains the reasons for its actions as derived from “cosmopolitan” or “higher order interests” and aims at achieving universal goals such as human welfare, fighting HIV, …
Linguistic View:
Transparency = ?
choice of an organization in terms of the information (either balanced or biased) included in its CSR communication. Thus, an organization can show different levels of transparency.
(Balanced, Biased)
Linguistic View:
=> Transparency
==> Balanced = ?
including both, favorable and unfavorable aspects/outcomes of its actions
Linguistic View:
=> Transparency
==> Biased = ?
including simply the favorable part (and omitting the unfavorable part)
Conative View:
Posture = ?
implies how the response is made, with a view to revealing the organization´s character in terms of its interactions with others;
(3 postures: Defensive, Tentative, Open)
Conative View:
=> Posture
==> Defensive = ?
An organization accepts no feedback from others, presumes it is always right in terms of its decisions and insulates itself from alternative sources of inputs
Conative View:
=> Posture
==> Tentative = ?
the organization is uncertain regarding consequences of its actions as a result of its inexperience with an issue or because it lacks appropriate tools to devise solutions
Conative View:
=> Posture
==> Open = ?
Orientation toward learning that is based on the organization´s willingness to listen and respond to alternative perspectives offered by others
Conative View:
Consistency = ?
consistency of behavior in approaching CSR tasks; the consistency (1-2) between an organization’s overall strategy and its CSR activities and that (3-4) within the varieties of CSR activities contemplated during any given period of time.
1-2: strategically (in)consistent
3-4: internally (in)consistent
Conative View:
=> Consistency
==> Strategically consistent = ?
Actively embedding CSR in the organization´s strategy
Conative View:
=> Consistency
==> Strategically inconsistent = ?
An organization guides its selection of CSR activities without any guidelines and simply gears up to make decisions as and when demanded by internal or external stakeholders
Conative View:
=> Consistency
==> Internally consistent = ?
Implies a willingness among managers to regard proposed CSR activities as a whole package designed to achieve specific aims
Conative View:
=> Consistency
==> Internally inconsistent = ?
conveys a propensity to treat such activities arbitrarily, without a coherent logic or systematic framework applied with respect to their occurrence
Conative View:
Commitment = ?
Commitment to reach a goal. A firm´s commitment to an activity has been viewed as critical in embedding the activity within its culture and in developing routinized processes in terms of delivery, thus contributing to the activity´s temporal stability
Conative View:
=> Commitment
==> Instrumental = ?
stems from external incentives/pressure
Conative View:
=> Commitment
==> Normative = ?
stems from internal and largely moral considerations
