4.0 Article

Between continuity and change: CSR managers' occupational rhetorics

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 632-646

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/JOCM-05-2016-0073

关键词

Occupation; CSR; Change agent; Rhetoric

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often depicted as a major challenge to current business practices, and CSR managers have recently been indicated as prime examples of change agents. The purpose of this paper is to take an occupational perspective to consider these managers. It focuses in particular on their occupational rhetorics, which correspond to idealized images that CSR managers use to represent their work. These rhetorics are analyzed in order to shed light on CSR managers' change potential in organizations. Design/methodology/approach - The study, which benefits from collaboration with the Italian CSR Manager Network, draws on a multi-method research approach which included interviews, observations at public events and meetings, as well as focus groups with CSR managers. Findings - Five broad rhetorical repertoires were identified: the motor of change, the business-oriented, the fatalist, the idealist and the CSR bookkeeper rhetorics. The primacy of the first two repertoires lead to the conclusion that CSR managers are more likely to foster continuity instead of change in current business practices. Research limitations/implications - The study is mainly based on interview data and could therefore be extended by ethnographic investigations of CSR managers' work or by observations of CSR managers' language use in their everyday work. Originality/value - The study is part of a growing empirical literature that investigates the role of individual actors in developing and implementing CSR in organizations and, in particular, the role of CSR practitioners. It contributes to the development of the literature on CSR-driven change within business organizations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据