Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility
Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, a...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Whelan, Glen [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2013 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
Actor-centred institutional theory |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics - Springer Netherlands, 1982, 115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:115 ; year:2013 ; number:4 ; month:07 ; pages:755-769 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2044555093 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2044555093 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503011453.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2013 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2044555093 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10551-013-1823-y-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 300 |a 330 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 3,2 |a 0 |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 85.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Whelan, Glen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2013 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Actor-centred institutional theory | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Corporate social responsibility | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Consensus | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Dissensus | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Public sphere | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of business ethics |d Springer Netherlands, 1982 |g 115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769 |w (DE-627)130668133 |w (DE-600)868017-6 |w (DE-576)018279333 |x 0167-4544 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:115 |g year:2013 |g number:4 |g month:07 |g pages:755-769 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-WIW | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_26 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4029 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 85.00 |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 115 |j 2013 |e 4 |c 07 |h 755-769 | ||
| author_variant |
g w gw |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:01674544:2013----::oprtcntutdndsetnbigulcpeedfeetaigisnulrmosn |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2013 |
| bklnumber |
85.00 |
| publishDate |
2013 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y doi (DE-627)OLC2044555093 (DE-He213)s10551-013-1823-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Whelan, Glen verfasserin aut Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility 2013 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions. Actor-centred institutional theory Corporate social responsibility Consensus Dissensus Public sphere Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Springer Netherlands, 1982 115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:115 year:2013 number:4 month:07 pages:755-769 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 85.00 VZ AR 115 2013 4 07 755-769 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y doi (DE-627)OLC2044555093 (DE-He213)s10551-013-1823-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Whelan, Glen verfasserin aut Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility 2013 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions. Actor-centred institutional theory Corporate social responsibility Consensus Dissensus Public sphere Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Springer Netherlands, 1982 115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:115 year:2013 number:4 month:07 pages:755-769 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 85.00 VZ AR 115 2013 4 07 755-769 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y doi (DE-627)OLC2044555093 (DE-He213)s10551-013-1823-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Whelan, Glen verfasserin aut Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility 2013 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions. Actor-centred institutional theory Corporate social responsibility Consensus Dissensus Public sphere Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Springer Netherlands, 1982 115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:115 year:2013 number:4 month:07 pages:755-769 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 85.00 VZ AR 115 2013 4 07 755-769 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y doi (DE-627)OLC2044555093 (DE-He213)s10551-013-1823-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Whelan, Glen verfasserin aut Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility 2013 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions. Actor-centred institutional theory Corporate social responsibility Consensus Dissensus Public sphere Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Springer Netherlands, 1982 115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:115 year:2013 number:4 month:07 pages:755-769 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 85.00 VZ AR 115 2013 4 07 755-769 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y doi (DE-627)OLC2044555093 (DE-He213)s10551-013-1823-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Whelan, Glen verfasserin aut Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility 2013 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions. Actor-centred institutional theory Corporate social responsibility Consensus Dissensus Public sphere Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Springer Netherlands, 1982 115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:115 year:2013 number:4 month:07 pages:755-769 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 85.00 VZ AR 115 2013 4 07 755-769 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Journal of business ethics 115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769 volume:115 year:2013 number:4 month:07 pages:755-769 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Journal of business ethics 115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769 volume:115 year:2013 number:4 month:07 pages:755-769 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Actor-centred institutional theory Corporate social responsibility Consensus Dissensus Public sphere |
| dewey-raw |
300 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Journal of business ethics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Whelan, Glen @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2013-07-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
130668133 |
| dewey-sort |
3300 |
| id |
OLC2044555093 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2044555093</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503011453.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2013 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2044555093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10551-013-1823-y-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,2</subfield><subfield code="a">0</subfield><subfield code="a">1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">85.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Whelan, Glen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Actor-centred institutional theory</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Corporate social responsibility</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consensus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dissensus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Public sphere</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of business ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1982</subfield><subfield code="g">115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)130668133</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)868017-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)018279333</subfield><subfield code="x">0167-4544</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:115</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2013</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:755-769</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">85.00</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">115</subfield><subfield code="j">2013</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">755-769</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Whelan, Glen |
| spellingShingle |
Whelan, Glen ddc 300 ssgn 3,2 bkl 85.00 misc Actor-centred institutional theory misc Corporate social responsibility misc Consensus misc Dissensus misc Public sphere Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility |
| authorStr |
Whelan, Glen |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)130668133 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
300 - Social sciences 330 - Economics |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0167-4544 |
| topic_title |
300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility Actor-centred institutional theory Corporate social responsibility Consensus Dissensus Public sphere |
| topic |
ddc 300 ssgn 3,2 bkl 85.00 misc Actor-centred institutional theory misc Corporate social responsibility misc Consensus misc Dissensus misc Public sphere |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 300 ssgn 3,2 bkl 85.00 misc Actor-centred institutional theory misc Corporate social responsibility misc Consensus misc Dissensus misc Public sphere |
| topic_browse |
ddc 300 ssgn 3,2 bkl 85.00 misc Actor-centred institutional theory misc Corporate social responsibility misc Consensus misc Dissensus misc Public sphere |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of business ethics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
130668133 |
| dewey-tens |
300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology 330 - Economics |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of business ethics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 |
| title |
Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2044555093 (DE-He213)s10551-013-1823-y-p |
| title_full |
Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility |
| author_sort |
Whelan, Glen |
| journal |
Journal of business ethics |
| journalStr |
Journal of business ethics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2013 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
755 |
| author_browse |
Whelan, Glen |
| container_volume |
115 |
| class |
300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Whelan, Glen |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y |
| dewey-full |
300 330 |
| title_sort |
corporate constructed and dissent enabling public spheres: differentiating dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility |
| title_auth |
Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility |
| abstract |
Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 |
| container_issue |
4 |
| title_short |
Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
130668133 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T23:58:02.285Z |
| _version_ |
1803604283660173312 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2044555093</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503011453.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2013 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2044555093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10551-013-1823-y-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,2</subfield><subfield code="a">0</subfield><subfield code="a">1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">85.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Whelan, Glen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract I here distinguish dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the grounds that the former is more concerned to organize (or portray) corporate-civil society disagreement than it is corporate-civil society agreement. In doing so, I first conceive of consensual CSR, and identify a positive and negative view thereof. Second, I conceive of dissensual CSR, and suggest that it can be actualized through the construction of dissent enabling, rather than consent-oriented, public spheres. Following this, I describe four actor-centred institutional theories—i.e. a sociological, ethical, transformative and economic perspective, respectively—and suggest that an economic perspective is generally well suited to explaining CSR activities at the organizational level. Accordingly, I then use the economic perspective to analyse a dissent enabling public sphere that Shell has constructed, and within which Greenpeace participated. In particular, I explain Shell’s employment of dissensual CSR in terms of their core business interests; and identify some potential implications thereof for Shell, Greenpeace, and society more generally. In concluding, I highlight a number of ways in which the present paper can inform future research on business and society interactions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Actor-centred institutional theory</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Corporate social responsibility</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consensus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dissensus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Public sphere</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of business ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1982</subfield><subfield code="g">115(2013), 4 vom: Juli, Seite 755-769</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)130668133</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)868017-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)018279333</subfield><subfield code="x">0167-4544</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:115</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2013</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:755-769</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1823-y</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">85.00</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">115</subfield><subfield code="j">2013</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">755-769</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4010057 |