Main Contributors 31 

Table 1 - Table of Main Contributors in Literature Review Paper Summary

Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility Jones and Wickes

(1999)

Defines stakeholder theory in terms of considering the inter-relationships between principals, agents and other stakeholder groups (e.g. employees, local communities, suppliers, governmental bodies, trade union and associations, local citizens and communities). Establishes the distinction between input and output legitimacy in terms of stakeholder-theory initiatives.

Donaldson and Preston (1995)

Sub-categorisation of stakeholder theory into (i) descriptive, (ii) normative and (iii) instrumental stakeholder theory. Descriptive theory about how managers take into account interests of stakeholders. Normative (input) considers why managers ought to attend to

stakeholders relating to underlying moral or philosophical principles or guidelines. Instrumental (output) concerns the capturing of positive

32 economic consequences from engagement.

Donaldson et al. (1995)

Extending from the 1995 research, positions normative stakeholder theory as the primary concern for companies in terms of approaches to stakeholders.

Margolis et al. (2003)

Challenges the need to reconcile corporate responsibility with

neoclassical model theory of the firm. Examining empirical relationship between a corporation's social initiatives and its financial performance, Margolis challenges instrumental approach of companies needing to be incentivised financially to participate in non-financial activities with/for stakeholders.

Freeman (1999) Recognises the instrumental need to demonstrate to corporate managers that addressing stakeholders is financially-substantive enough to be a worthwhile activity, effectively arguing against Margolis.

Post, Preston & Sachs (2002)

In support of the instrumental approach, Post et al. define stakeholders explicitly by the contributions to the financial bottom-line and their relative effects on the creation and/or destruction of wealth

Lasserre (2007) Provides an outline of ‘Strategic CSR’ approach to corporate strategy management, and how stakeholder interests (beyond shareholders) are placed centrally in relation to the long-term corporate objectives of global corporations.

Blowfield (2008) Identifying stakeholder engagement process as a key route for CSR management, with this process used as a means of defining and legitimizing the scope of CSR management.

Henson (2010) Author criticises academic debates for failing to recognise the diversity of private voluntary standards in the food sector, in terms of (i) their institutional form, (ii) who develops and promotes them, (iii) who adopts them, and (iv) why.

Poetz (2012) Questions inclusivity of voluntary standards due to them being costly to implement, and as requiring considerable commitment at company management level to justify the time and expense of pursuing and attaining the implementation of such standards.

Certification Standards, Bias and Decoupling Meyer and

Rowan (1977)

‘Policy-practice’ decoupling is considered the traditional notion of decoupling (Meyer and Rowan, 1977), and relates to where organizations have adopted a policy only symbolically, without implementing it

33 Freeman (1984) Perceived stakeholder theory as an element of liberal economic theory of

profit-maximizing firm, with engagement as a facet of wealth creation. Engagement is considered a necessary intangible asset for mitigating potential loss of profits.

Mueller (2009) Asserts instances in standard-design create a bias towards potential domination by large corporations. Asserts importance of the

‘inclusiveness’ of standards as a key legitimacy source, covering all of the participants or indeed as many as possible. Identifies five criteria to be considered in terms of appropriate standard selection and

implementation, in terms of their ability to generate legitimacy amongst stakeholders.

Werther (2011) Stakeholders are prioritized depending on their proximity to ‘core operations’, implying those further away from core operations will have less immediate importance than those stakeholders closer to the core activities of the business.

Gilbert (2010) A key text relating to identifying ‘decoupling’, where standards- requirements are not reflective of actual organisational practice. Companies may capture the benefits of adhering to standardized, legitimating formal structures, whilst in actuality the activities vary freely in response to practical considerations. Clusters standards into four categories, recognising different ways standards draw credibility and legitimacy within affected stakeholders: principles-based, certification- based, reporting / transparency-based and process quality standards. Sandholtz (2012) Inductive analysis of standard-designers observing decoupling when

applying own rules; emphasises dynamic nature of decoupling with an initial ‘symbolic compliance’ stage. Emphasises lack of research on standard setters applying the standards.

Haack and Schoenborn (2012)

Coupling, decoupling and recoupling is a dynamic process,

acknowledging that CR standardization is an institutional process that commences, rather than ends, at the point of adopting.

Christensen (2013)

Dynamic decoupling affirmed; the public disclosure of commitments is a ‘license to critique’; a means of rooting sustainability standards deeper into operational practice, with disclosure as the raw material for reconstructing organizations.

Wijen (2014) Identifies decoupling as being ‘means-end’ rather than just ‘policy- process’ decoupling as per Meyer and Rowan’s (1977) primary definition.

Haack (2015) Rejects Wijen (2014), stating policies and processes represent features of an interpretation that are effectively two ‘fixed’ reference points,

34 Also, argues that decoupling policy from practice enables organizations to maintain their legitimacy in the face of conflicting institutional demands.

Christensen (2017)

Extension of 2013; ‘license to critique’ acts as response to criticisms of sustainability standards as either too open-ended or too restrictive, resulting in a disabling of their ability to contribute to sustainability standards.

Voluntary standards and legitimacy

Bernstein (2005) Legitimacy requires that standards are both inclusive and have the capacity to ensure free and equal discourses among participants. Lacking inclusiveness reflects a problem because legitimacy is essential to

standard-setters, and a standard’s authority depends on the perceived appropriateness and justification of their rules by a community. Palazzo and

Scherer (2006)

Legitimacy, in the context of transnational governance, is built on a foundation of deliberation and communication. Successful CSR discourse needs to be based on input-focused ‘moral legitimacy’ based on active justifications with society, and not Output-justified cognitive and pragmatic legitimacy.

Gilbert (2007) Collaboration can increase and reinforce legitimacy (especially in developing countries), local considerations are largely ignored by the overarching standardizing authority/body, with this factor being

particularly pronounced during the pre-formulation stage of consultation process when consulting multinational companies.

Dahl (1999) Asserts in terms of normative standards, the work of international organizations such as the UN, is often criticized as it is assumed that global policy making is too remote from local realities.

Auld (2010) Considers a legitimacy trade-off between creating globally enforceable rules and implementation issues in developing countries, finds disclosure alone is insufficient in protecting against legitimacy challenges by stakeholders.

Schouten (2012) Analysing roundtables as a mechanism for deliberative democracy, challenges the ability for the RSPO structure to incorporate ‘radical’ viewpoints presented by local community stakeholders.

Scherer and Palazzo (2013)

Argues that adapting to the expectations of external stakeholders, or manipulating those expectations while maintaining a ‘business-as-usual approach to ongoing operations, are increasingly becoming insufficient responses to capturing legitimacy.

35 Vellema and

v.Wilk (2015)

Offers a two-stage dynamic of embedding at the international level, and at the local level; however, effectiveness relies on settings wherein local partnerships already have a history of alignment of different interest around a public goal.

Richards, Zellweger and Gond (2016)

Asserts that firms primarily rely on two distinct sets of legitimacy principles that reflect their identity orientation, that of (i) the ‘civic and green’ world, and (ii) the ‘domestic’ world, arguing that a reliance by companies on the domestic world is negatively related to firms investment in sustainability certifications.

Schouten and Glasbergen (2011)

Argue that the legitimization of private governance initiatives is a dynamic, multi-dimensional process operationalized across three angles: legality, moral justifications, and consent/acceptance, and RSPO fails to secure this.

Glasbergen (2013)

Argues for the need for the standard to be credible to critical external audiences and participators, and the damage of NGO campaigns to a standard’s effectiveness and reliability as a source of consensus building and compromise.

Ruysschaart and Salles (2014)

Identifies the conflict of interest between NGOs that identify growers for not implementing the RSPO guidelines properly from a conservation perspective, and large growers using strategies to decrease the conservation areas to maximize profits; claiming that the RSPO is

succeeding in allowing western downstream manufacturing companies to secure their long-term supply of palm oil and protect their reputation. Oosterveer

(2015)

Considers how the legitimacy of the network is subject to dynamic processes elsewhere that undermine its authority, as actors and members potentially pursue their goals outside the RSPO framework, or the potential for the RSPO itself to be split into several networks, each with their own organising principles and understandings of sustainability.