A Spatio-Temporal Odyssey Around the Concepts of Sustainable

Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, ISSN 1548-6583 October 2011, Vol. 7, No. 10, 1158-1168

A Spatio-Temporal Odyssey Around the Concepts of Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Responsibility: Boundaries to Be Determined? Azzedine Tounés

Wafa Chakroun

Groupe ESC Chambéry Savoie, France

Sousse University, Tunisia

Fafani Gribaa Montpellier 1 University, France

The aim of this research is to analyze the emergence of the concepts of sustainable development (SD) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in companies in time and space. A spatio-temporal reading will indicate the most important socio-political and environmental events that have emerged with these two concepts. In order to complete the odyssey, a spatio-temporal analysis has retraced the epistemological evolution of these latter, whilst at the same time remarking the appropriation that has been made by the different institutional and organizational actors. The historical and epistemological reviews tell us that these two concepts, which came into existence almost 80 years, have indefinite outlines; one can be substituted for the other. However, thanks to this odyssey, we have reduced the boundaries even further between sustainable development and social responsibility and shown their theoretic and historical association. The perspective adopted shows that the concept of corporate social responsibility is closely connected to that of sustainable development. This connection means that researchers in management science are faced with more new problem issues reaching further than the simple lack of conceptual consensuses. Keywords: corporate social responsibility, eco-development, spatio-temporal analysis, sustainable development

Introduction The policies in industrialized and developing countries show an increasing awareness of the ecological, economic and social risks run by man and ecosystems. Companies are increasingly committed to the process of sustainable development (SD). The fact that this latter, as well as corporate social responsibility (CSR), is being taught, denotes the increasing interest on the part of the academic community in these emerging pedagogical fields. The aim of this article is to provide an odyssey in time and space of the concepts of sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. This spatio-temporal analysis highlights the major social, political and environmental events that have marked the emergence of these two concepts. This odyssey also retraces the epistemological evolution of these two concepts by indicating the appropriation which has been made of them by governments, diverse institutions and companies. The historical and epistemological Azzedine Tounés, lecturer, researcher, Groupe ESC Chambéry Savoie. Wafa Chakroun, Ph.D. student, Sousse University. Fafani Gribaa, Ph.D. student, lecturer-assistant, Montpellier 1 University.

A SPATIO-TEMPORAL ODYSSEY

1159

perspectives have caused links to be built up between sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. These two concepts that have existed for nearly a century have instable boundaries, as one can be substituted for the other in particular contexts. This research has been structured in three parts. The first considers the socio-political and academic emergence of sustainable development through institutional commitment and the conceptual metamorphosis (section 1). In the second part, we have discussed the change in the paradigm of company responsibility by inviting the reader to look at the origins of this concept whilst highlighting the differences and the similarities between the American and European approaches (section 2). This historic and epistemological path led us to summarize the emergence and the transformation of these two concepts in connection with the principal socio-political and environmental events which have marked them (section 3). This summary is one of the main contributions to this research. As a conclusion and going beyond the debates concerning the preservation of resources and the equity within and between generations, company performance is achieved by resolving the profitability/responsibility equation. We have given information on the theoretical contexts that are likely to explain why companies are committed to sustainable development. The stakeholder theory appears to be the most appropriate.

The Socio-Political and Academic Emergence of Sustainable Development In the middle of the 1960s, a new awareness of the ecological challenges brought numerous social, economic and environmental questions to the forefront. Different organizations and governments took action to clarify and enrich the debates on sustainable development. Institutional Commitment The negative effects of the industrial revolution on the environment and on man have been accumulating since the last century. This observation meant that the development question had to be reconsidered by examining the models that guarantee long-term economic, social and environmental progress. This is what is called sustainable development which we will denote in the following text by the abbreviation SD. In 19621, the book Silent Spring, published by Carson, had an important impact on American civil society. The author indicated that the residue of agricultural pesticide was reaching catastrophic levels; considerable damage was being caused to animal species and man, strategy for a sustainable world. Apart from these ecological threats, demographic concerns were also emerging. The President of the French Academy of Sciences, was questioned on the impact of demographic growth on SD (term not yet used at the time). The doubling of the world population in twenty five years, he confirmed, would mean that that the increased needs that would be difficult to fulfill for developed countries and impossible to satisfy for those that were poor (communication structure, raw materials, agricultural products, health care needs etc.). The overpopulation would exhaust the supply of mineral resources and water and lead to famine, epidemics, destruction of the fauna in the oceans and air pollution etc. The 1970s was a period of international protest movements in favor of environmental protection. The United States organized The Earth Day on 22nd April 1970, a project initiated by Senator Gaylord Nelson; the 1

In the 19th century, the works of John Muir strongly influenced the emergence of the modern environmental movement. His activism contributed to saving the Yosemite in the USA.

1160


ecological and environmental issues brought together a crowd of almost 20 million people. This demonstration shaped the emergence of a modern ecological movement in the West. Conscious of the ecological and demographical risks that threaten the environmental, socio-political and economic balance, various programmes and measures were implemented by international organizations, governments and companies2. Table 1 shows the most significant. Table 1 Institutional Commitment in Favor of SD Year 1970 1971

1971

1971

1972 1972 1987 1990 1992

1997 1997 2002 2009

Socio-political events

Programmes and observations The planet’s resources are not unlimited; consequently it is essential Earth Day to organize for them to be shared equitably and sustainably. This organization concentrates its actions on global problems which Creation de Greenpeace threaten the environment. Climatic changes, the consumption of energy, biodiversity... are planetary challenges. This report warned of the danger of exponential economic and Meadow Report by the Club de Rome: halt demographic growth which would drain resources and overexploit growth natural systems. Founex Report written by Maurice Strong, Development and the environment are “two sides of the same thing”. organizer of the United Nations conference in It is necessary to conceive and implement development strategies Stockholm on the environment and that are socio-economically equitable, that respect the environment, development called eco-development strategies. “Only one earth”, report published by René This document was inspired the Stockholm summit. René Dubos was Dubos and Barbara Ward the creator of the idea “think globally, act locally”. United Nations summit on man and the Appearance of the eco-development concept which called into environment in Stockholm question the normal means of development. SD is “a development which fulfils the needs of current generations Brundtland Report, in preparation for the Rio without compromising the capacity of future generations to fulfill summit: The future for all of us their”. The first report of the PNUD on human This report used IDHs for the first time, indictors of human development development. Rio declaration with 27 principles; Agenda 21 with 2,500 (Rio) Earth Summit recommendations; conventions on biodiversity, the climate, desertification; text on the forests. Launching of the “Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)” whose United Nations General Assembly in New objective was to create a normalized report in the same way as a York (Rio + 5) financial report. The Kyoto agreement was created with a will to be effective but the Kyoto Conference ratifications did not follow. “Our house is burning and we are not even looking” (Chirac, French World Summit on SD (Johannesburg) President). Active participation of companies. Failure to reach an international agreement to combat global Copenhagen Summit warming.

The chronological analysis of this summary indicates that the concept of SD has progressively moved further away from its initial strictly ecological acceptance. In many forms and dimensions, it can be defined in numerous ways. The Emergence of the Concept: The Triple Elements “Development-Eco-Development-Sustainable Development” Following the socio-political events which marked the 1970s, the two antagonistic approaches, that of human development and the environment, needed to be reconciled. This reconciliatory metamorphosis was 2

See Shell case study after the Brent Spar and the Niger delta scandals in the 1990s.


1161

recorded over two important periods, the first being situated in the 1970s. A team of researchers mainly made up of economists, led by Maurice Strong met together in 1972, in order to examine the connections between the environment and development. This team concluded that it was necessary and possible to implement equitable socio-economic development strategies that respected the environment, called eco-development strategies. In France and from 1973 onwards, the Sachs team continued the American research on the concept of eco-development. In order for environmental constraints to become part of entrepreneurial strategies, five factors have to be taken into consideration, that is to say: the combination of social relevance and the equity of the solutions proposed, ecological prudence, economic effectiveness, cultural aspects and territoriality. This transition of the concept of development in its traditional approach, to that of eco-development, called into question the development models used up to then by the economists. The second important step was the continuation of this evolution at the end of the 1970s and during the 1980s. In fact, the expansion of the conception of eco-development led to problem issues which were much more than just ecological preoccupations. In fact, in November 1976, the “Primer simposio sobre ecodesarrollo”, organized by the Mexican Association of Epistemology, affirmed that the more and more pronounced conflicts between the economic models in place and the natural degradations could be resolved by a choice of society which was a matter for the institutional and political powers. The development should not only be guided by economic considerations, but also by social and ecological requirements. Therefore the concept of eco-development, re-appropriated by the Anglo-Saxons, disappeared and was referred to as “sustainable development”, initially translated as tenable, then sustainable development. This expression was cited for the first time in 1980 by the International Union for Nature Conservancy in its work “World Strategies for Conservation”. It was then introduced in 1987 in the report ordered by the United Nations for the Brundtland Commission and was accepted by the Rio conference on the environment and development in 1992. Recently, in 2001, the European Communities Commission noted that: Sustainable development is more than a purely environmental concept; it is a question of making a dynamic economy exist in a society that would give everyone their chance, at the same time improving the productivity of resources by disassociating growth and the degradation of the environment.

These different approaches refer to a macro-economy; however it is at a micro-economic level that SD is subject to contingencies (Reynaud, 2004). These approaches did not generally provide the means of integrating this concept into company management. It was only at the end of the last century that this concept spread to the micro-economic level.

Responsibility Going Beyond the Traditional Paradigm: From Leaders to Companies In the 1970s, the considerable increase in industrial accidents, pollution and environmental or health scandals… provoked the indignation of public opinion. Social actions questioned companies on the level of ecological responsibility in their activities, their commitment in political life, and the equality of the sexes at work or even racial discrimination (Smith, 2003). The fundamental question was how to apply a systematic managerial approach to dynamic and new objectives, that is to say, the social questions which companies found themselves confronted with. Faced with pressure from the different stakeholders, the management teams have

1162


become more and more committed to the SD process (Grégoire & Mercier, 2003). The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) in the United States has the aim of encouraging companies to make an efficient use of natural resources that is compatible with SD and the global security of human beings. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) had been militating so that company management developed a sense of responsibility with regard to respecting natural resources. In one of the programmes dating from 1992, the UNO incited industrials to work on a declaration of commitment to SD. In Europe, and since 1987, industrial companies have increasingly integrated the problem issues connected with SD In 2002, the European Commission set up a multilateral forum to enable companies to exchange views on responsible social practices. Including SD in company preoccupations shows a significant move from a paradigm centered on management responsibility to another focused on companies and their managers. According to Stuart (1997), a company is a unique organization which has the financial, technological and motivational resources necessary to reach sustainability. It can act internally on each of its resources to propose “sustainable” goods and services. The challenge is to overcome pollution, climatic changes, the drain on resources, poverty, and inequalities. This paradigmatic transition has led to numerous debates on corporate social responsibility that we have denoted with the abbreviation CSR. The academic and managerial community is becoming more and more implicated (Capron & Quairel, 2004; Déjean & Gond, 2004; Igalens 2004; Allouche & Laroche, 2005). However the definition of CSR has not by any means led to a consensus. In this part, we have returned to the origins of this concept and then analyzed the American and European approaches. The Origins of the Concept A voyage to the historic origins of CSR ineluctably implies a detour to consider religious facts. These have played an important role in the theoretic construction process of social responsibility. The Protestant religion occupied a preponderant place in the formation and the spread of the notion of CSR in the USA (Bowen, 1953). According to Acquier, Gond, and Igalens (2006), the Protestant and Catholic religions were the more or less explicit sources of inspiration for the first conceptualizations of the notion of CSR. During the first half of the 20th century, the Protestant concepts of “public service” and “stewardship” characterized the relationship between companies and society. Property was not an absolute and unconditional right. Private property management had to contribute to collective well-being. Each property owner had to satisfy the needs of society and answer for his acts before God and society. The Catholic Church condemns the exploitation of the human race and more recently that of the environment. “The doctrine of the church has also inspired numerous practices, by creating a model of paternalist management that can be considered retrospectively as socially responsible” (Acquier, Gond, & Igalens, 2006). For Frederik (1994), the origin of the concept was to be found in the work of Berle and Means (1932). They questioned the consequences of power transfer following the separation of capital holdings and the exercise of managerial power. Carroll (1979) attributed the paternity of the CSR concept to Bowen in his work Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Along the lines of the works of Bowen (1953), the CSR concept has progressively emerged as a managerial problem issue. Thus appeared the trend of companies’ social performance “CSR: Corporate Social Responsiveness”. The works of Ackerman (1973) and Ackerman, and Bauer (1976) were precursors of this trend; they apprehended companies as organizations that were not closed


1163

in. This conception based on a processual vision, studied the capacity of a company to respond to social pressures. They were no longer interested in the contents of the CSR, but a process more orientated towards the means than the ends. There was a certain lull in the intellectual and social debate on CSR in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. It was in the middle of this period that they resurfaced (Acquier & Gond, 2005). The consequences of numerous scandals and economic crises awakened the interest of the media, governments and various social actors. The observation was that economic performance does not necessarily lead to the well-being of society or social progress: a few illustrations of this were the destruction of the environment, job insecurity or even discrimination towards certain social groups. Important works re-orientated and reunified approaches which seemed in the past, to be far from one another. Those relating to companies’ societal performance contributed summaries of approaches which had, up until then, been disparate in this field of research. The investigations were structured around precise managerial problem issues such as the operationalization of CSR and the relationship between performance and this latter (Drucker, 1984; Gond, 2004). The view according to which CSR participates in a company’s financial performance shows that it has a preponderant role. The only performance objective being to maximize the share value was called into question; the shareholders were no longer considered as the only beneficiaries of the profit, actors carrying out true entrepreneurial functions were also associated with it. This view highlighted the interest in a “partner” approach which took the interests of all the company stakeholders into account (Berle & Means, 1932). The assessment of company performance was apprehended from three angles “Triple Bottom Line”: social, the social consequences of the company activity were analyzed for all the stakeholders (people); environmental, to ensure there was a compatibility between the company activity and maintaining the ecosystems (planet) and economic; a company has to ensure that it is viable. Because of its managerial dimension and its conceptual scope, the use of the stakeholder theory in the field of CSR constituted the second marked advance in the 1990s period. According to Déjean and Gond (2004) “companies therefore seemed to rediscover the necessity of better managing their societal responsibility which could be defined, when first analyzed, as more explicitly taking the stakeholders into account in the strategy”. Despite the efforts to summarize this in the 1980s and 1990s, there was still no normative definition that was capable of really defining the CSR concept. A geographic approach highlighted the fundamental differences between the American and European conceptions. Whereas the first is built on ethical and religious values, the second took its sources from political debates. American and European Approaches: Philanthropism Versus Mercantilism Like SD, CSR is a large and not very stabilized concept. The numerous theses have been disparate, unclear and even contradictory (Wood, 1991; Allouche, Huault, & Schmidt, 2004). We made the choice to make comparisons that were likely to show common or differentiating dimensions. Globally two currents of thought emerged from this; the American and the European. Capron and Quairel (2004) concluded that the first consider CSR as a group of philanthropic actions. Bowen (1953), Carroll (1979), Wartick and Cochran (1985), Wood (1991) and Clarkson (1995) are authors who are representative of the American school. In the following summary table (Table 2), we have highlighted the principal American approaches to CSR with the

1164


corresponding definitions. Table 2 Principal American Approaches to CSR and the Definitions Connected With Them Approaches

Authors

Influence of the protestant religion in the Bowen (1953) theoretic construction of CSR Introduction of moral dimensions in the Bowen (1953) decisions taken by the company directors Going beyond economic and technical responsibilities

Davis (1960)

Going beyond economic, contractual or legal responsibilities

McGuire (1963) Friedman (1962)

Maximizing the profit for shareholders Friedman (1970) Meeting the expectations of society in a voluntary way

Carroll (1979)

Micro-economic approach for the relation Wartick and between a company and its environment Cochran (1985) Respecting the principles to be found on Wood (1991) an institutional, organizational and managerial level Introduction of societal performance as a Clarkson (1995) capacity to satisfy the stakeholders

Definition: CSR CSR was developed according to the perspective of the social control of private property; it’s referred to the protestant concepts of “stewardship” and “trusteeship”. The company’s directors have to implement strategies, make decisions and guarantee practices so they are compatible with the objectives and the values of the community in general. CSR is all the decisions taken for reasons which go beyond a company’s economic or technical interests. Supposes that a company not only has legal and economic obligations but that it also has responsibilities towards society which exceed these obligations. CSR is the fact of generating the maximum profit for shareholders. Consists of using its resources and undertaking activities destined to increase profits. Encompasses all the economic, legal and ethical, expectations, as well as the discretionary ones that society expects of its organizations. CSR is the subjacent interaction between the principles of social responsibility, the process of social awareness and the policies implemented to deal with social problems. CSR is the interaction of the three principles: legitimacy, public responsibility and managerial discretion. It results in three levels of analysis: institutional, organizational and individual. CSR is the capacity to manage and satisfy the different stakeholders in the company.

Contrary to the American positions, the European models recommend that, apart from making profits which is the first responsibility of companies, they can together contribute to achieving social and environmental objectives; this objectives need to be included in the strategic investments (Igalens & Vicens, 2005). Associating CSR with voluntary participation and with the internal and external stakeholders is one of the discordant points which have been identified by the school that criticizes CSR. According to Gendron (2000), this association gives a great deal of latitude to companies which are unaware of the role of public authority; but it is the state which formalizes arbitration between social actors and see that there is social equity. In a comparative study carried out in Europe and the United States, Maignan and Ralston (2002) highlighted the different significant geographic approaches. Contrary to the United States, French and Dutch companies do not really put forward an image of citizenship in their communication operations. This comes back to the conceptions of the role and the place that the company has in society in general. In Western Europe, CSR is often reduced to working conditions (the state being responsible for social well-being), whereas in the United States, companies have a moral responsibility towards the community in which they operate (Allouche et al., 2004). As this concerns the implication of American entrepreneurs in CSR, these authors conclude that this implication is strong, long-standing and is clearly founded on the values of shareholders; this is consequently infused in their organizational culture. In France and in Holland, the implication is based on performance criteria.


1165

Therefore the way in which CSR is in the two continents indicates that in the United States it is essentially based on philanthropic programs and voluntary participation; through questions of quality of life, integration and education, the community is the centre of interest. On the other hand, in France and in Holland, actions favoring CSR are certainly orientated towards programs of voluntary participation, but they are also closely linked to productive and business activities; these programs concern the stakeholders engaged in productive cycles (quality of products and services in France, health and security of employees in the Netherlands). According to Gond (2004), in Europe, unlike the USA, CSR is largely assimilated with SD. This semantic and conceptual conciliation attempts to remove a recurrent difficulty which consists in finding a consensual foundation that is likely to provide companies with stable situations for exercising CSR. It is however still the case that despite the fundamental differences in American and European paradigms, the connection presented previously still dominates, that of the “Triple Bottom Line”. This concerns the transposition of the concept of SD to companies. Human beings, finding themselves at the centre of problem issues concerned with management, ecological preoccupations and globalization are calling for managerial processes to be renewed. The challenges of sustainability require social responsibility that goes beyond legal obligations; this indicates more investment in human capital, respect for the environment and relations with the “stakeholders” (Commission des Communautés Européennes [CCE], 2001). Whatever the CSR approach, the debate is no longer concerned with its relevance and its importance; it concerns the operating strategies and the role of companies to succeed with it (Igalens, 2004). In the light of the spatio-temporal analyses of SD and CSR, we have proposed a framework for analyzing their emergence; this combines the missing dates, the corresponding socio-political events and the institutional and organizational commitments which resulted from them. This framework is one of the major contributions of this research.

A Synthetic Overview Delimiting the Indissolubility of the Two Concepts The diverse economic crises, the decade of development in the 1960s, the reports of the Brundtland commission, the Rio and Johannesburg summits were some of the major events that marked the emergence of the SD and CSR concepts (Table 3). The implication of diverse organizations and governments and more and more in depth works from the scientific communities have marked our conceptual odyssey. From development to sustainable development, it is today necessary to improve human conditions without destroying the eco-systems. From the moral dimension in entrepreneurial decisions to societal performance; CSR is the perfect application for SD in companies. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) includes CSR in a SD context. This is “the continuous commitment of companies to act correctly from an ethical viewpoint and contribute to economic development, at the same time improving the quality of life of its employees and their families, the local community and all of society” (Lavorata & Pontier, 2005). The European Commission on SD agreed with this observation in a paper of July 2002. “In fact CSR is intrinsically connected with the concept of sustainable development”; it is considered as an essential element in SD strategy; for this, the authorities must encourage and ensure that companies include environmental and social preoccupations into their ways of management.

1166


Table 3 Putting Into Perspective the Spatio-Temporal Emergence of SD and CSR According to the Most Important Social, Economic and Environmental Event Key dates

1934 1953

1960-1969

1971

1973

1987

1992

1997

2002

Socio-political and environmental events

Simultaneously taking into account the International awareness environmental, Ecological Ecological crisis Launch of the development economic and crisis decade social problems connected with SD

Incitation for there Drawing up Obligation to be an of 27 to publish obligation ecological reports on for principles SD companies to actively participate

Meadow Tragedy Creation Dust Creation Report: of of OCDE Bowl of PNUD halting Minamata and WWF growth

Earth Summit (Rio)

First fuel Brundtland crisis Commission

Rio + 5

2009

Combat against global warming

…up now

to

Application of SD at a company level

World Summit Summit of on SD Copenhagen (Johannes burg)

Emergence of the concepts

Sustainable development Eco-development Operate social responsibility

CSR

Epistemological genesis

Influence of the protestant religion in the theoretic construction of CSR Introduction of moral dimensions in the decisions of company directors

Going beyond Creating maximum economic and profit for the technical shareholders responsibilities

SD

Awareness of the necessity to integrate cultural, social, economic institutional, political and ecological dimensions

Introduction of social performance

Development to the detriment of the quality of the environment cannot be viable in the long-term

Improve human conditions without destroying the ecosystems

Organizational and scientific implications

Academic community and diverse international institutions Governments Companies

For Dreveton and Krupicka (2005), CRS is the means of transferring sustainable development to companies. The concept of CSR seems to be simply the application of SD in companies. This implicates the responsibility of a large number of actors; according to Capron and Quairel (2004), CSR is an appropriation on the part of the companies of SD logics. Therefore this appropriation, as an expression of SD applied to organizations, is a process of development which implicates combined changes so that this new means of management is totally effective.

Conclusions SD and CSR are themes which have mobilized many political, economic, social and academic communities. The difficulty of finding a universal definition and delimiting the scope of each of the two concepts often


1167

causes the definition of these connections to be unclear and ambiguous. However, thanks to our odyssey, we have been able to further reduce the boundaries between them and show their theoretic and historic association. CSR is intrinsically connected with the concept of SD. This interaction is one of the keys factors in the capacity of companies to adapt to the challenges of SD. The central hypothesis is that the respect of certain moral and ethical values is indispensible for companies’ sustainable economic development. The general idea is that this latter integrates social and environmental objectives into its managerial choices. This means that the expectations of all the stakeholders are taken into consideration in the strategic decisions. This necessitates adopting new management models and making a change in the systems of values of organizations. To achieve performance, the two factors, profitability/social responsibility, must be interconnected. It remains that in order to explain companies’ strategic choices to favor sustainable energy, it is necessary to adopt integrating approaches based on the entrepreneurship theory (Spence, Ben Boubaker Gherib, & Ondoua Biwolé, 2007); the stakeholder theory (Dontenwille, 2005) or the resources approach (Borchani, 2004). The stakeholder theory seems to be the most relevant; the influence of diverse actors (internal or external) when adopting responsible and sustainable behavior, would better explain these strategic choices. Included in an enlarged system thanks to the systematic approach of SD, companies are social organizations whose interactions with neighboring social groups are intensifying.

References Ackerman, R. W. (1973). How companies respond to social demons. Harvard Business Review, 51(4), 88-98. Ackerman, R. W., & Bauer, R. A. (1976). Corporate social responsiveness: The modern dilmna. Virginia: Reston Publishing Compagny. Acquier, A., & Gond, J. P. (2005). Aux sources de la responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise, (Re) Lecture et mise en perspective d’un ouvrage fondateur: Social responsibilities of the businessman d’Howard Bowen (1953). Proceedings from: Journées développement durable (AIMS). Aix en Provence. Acquier, A., Gond, J. P., & Igalens, J. (2006). Des fondements religieux de la responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise à la responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise comme religion. Proceedings from: Congrès de l’AGRH. Paris. Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. (2005). A meta analytical examination of the link between corporate social and financial performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. Allouche, J., Huault, I., & Schmidt, G. (2004). Responsabilité sociale des entreprises: La mesure détournée? Proceedings from: Congrès de l’AGRH. Montréal. Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: The Macmillan Company. Borchani, M. (2004). Les déterminants de la stratégie societal’e des multinationales: Étude exploratoire des entreprises étrangères en France. Proceedings from: 13ème Conférence de l’AIMS. Normandie-Vallée de Seine. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Brothers. Capron, M., & Quairel, L. F. (2004). Mythes et réalités de l’entreprise responsable. Paris: La Découverte. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston, Houghton: Mifflin. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117. Commission des Communautés Européennes. (2001). Promouvoir un cadre européen pour la responsabilité sociale des entreprises. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/fr/com/2001/com2001_0366fr01.pdf Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore corporate social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 70-76. Déjean, F., & Gond, J. P. (2004). La responsabilité sociétale des entreprises: Enjeux stratégiques et méthodologie de recherché. Finance Contrôle Stratégie, 7(1), 5-31. Dontenwill, E. (2005). Comment la théorie des parties prenantes peut-elle permettre d’opérationnaliser le concept de

1168


développement durable pour les entreprises? Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 40(211/212), 85. Dreveton, B., & Krupicka, A. (2005). Le développement durable: Une problématique de gestion? Proceedings from: 19ème Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique (AIMS). Angers. Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 26(2), 53-63. Frederick, W. C. (1994). Coda. Business and Society, 33(2), 150-166. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 4, 173-178. Gendron, C. (2000). La responsabilité sociale des enterprises. Revue du MAUSS, (15), 320-325. Gond, J. P. (2004). Apprendre à devenir tous socialement responsable? Apprentissage organisationnel et performance sociétale de l’entreprise. In J. Igalens (Ed.), Tous responsables! Paris: Editions d’Organisation. Gregoire, P., & Mercier, C. (2003). La présence d’informations chiffrées en matière d’environnement dans les rapports d’activités 2001 de 150 grandes entreprises françaises (p. 25). Paris: Institut français de l’environnement. Igalens, J. (2004). Comment évaluer les rapports de développement durable? Revue Française de Gestion, 5(152), 151-166. Igalens, J., & Vicens, C. (2005). Vers des restructurations socialement responsables? Revue Management et Avenir, 3(1), 101-119. Lavorata, L., & Pontier, S. (2005). Le magasin: Relais indispensable à la politique éthique de l’enseigne. Proceedings from: Congrès EURAM. Munich. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. (2002). Corporate social responsability in Europe and the U.S.A: Insights from businesses’self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497-514. McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. MacGraw Hill. Reynaud, E. (2004). Le développement durable. Revue Française de Gestion, 5(152), 117-119. Smith, C. N. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52-76. Spence, M., Ben Boubaker Gherib, J., & Ondoua Biwolé, V. (2007). Développement durable et PME: Une étude exploratoire des déterminants de leur engagement. Revue Internationale des PME (RIPME), 20(3/4), 17-42. Stuart, H. (1997). Strategy for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 66-76. Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758-769. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691-718.

Copyright of Journal of Modern Accounting & Auditing is the property of David Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.