Responsabilidades individuais ou pressões institucionais? Discussões sobre o papel dos gestores na definição de responsabilidades corporativas

Simone Alves Pacheco de Campos, Shalimar Gallon

Resumo


Este ensaio visa apresentar um possível caminho teórico àqueles interessados em compreender comportamentos individuais idiossincráticos dos gestores em face de quadros institucionais no desenvolvimento de políticas e práticas de responsabilidade social corporativa. Discorre-se acerca do paradoxo indivíduo/organização; e, para tanto, busca-se subsídios na teoria institucional para compreender se adoção abordagens de RSC seria um comportamento individual dos gestores com base em características comportamentais ou uma resposta ao quadro institucional. O objetivo é mostrar tal caminho a partir de uma construção entre comportamento pro-social dos gestores e empreendedorismo institucional como uma possível resposta a este paradoxo. Apresenta-se, assim, o empreendedor social, no contexto de ações proativas de RSC, como o indivíduo possuidor de comportamentos pro-sociais, no sentido de que busca promover práticas e ações responsáveis que vão além do exigido pela lei e pelas normas sociais. Considerando que os indivíduos percebem o contexto de distintas formas - sendo estas únicas e incompletas -, a emergência de posturas proativas em relação à RSC transcende o esperado pelos distintos sistemas de negócios e revelam uma postura mais explícita, que pode estar relacionada à existência de um comportamento pró-social por parte dos gestores ao balizarem suas ações pelo bem da coletividade e ampliando o seu escopo de visão para além das expectativas dos stakeholders. Assim, empreendedores institucionais que engajam no desenvolvimento de iniciativas de RSC possuem recursos e interesses na modificação das práticas institucionalmente estabelecidas e, assim, são capazes de conduzir a empresa a um caminho sustentável. Muito em parte, acredita-se que tais indivíduos possuam traços inegáveis de comportamento pró-social, na medida em que utilizam seus recursos e interesses em iniciativas de bem comum e não somente para os propósitos individuais. O presente ensaio não pretende esgotar as discussões acadêmicas em relação à responsabilidade individual, nem mesmo apresentar o conceito de comportamento pró-social como normativa única para os estudos neste âmbito. O propósito aqui é o de levantar insights e possibilidades para a compreensão de como pode ser tratada a responsabilidade individual dos gestores.


Palavras-chave


Responsabilidade Social Corporativa, Comportamento Pró-Social, Teoria Institucional, Empreendedorismo Institucional

Texto completo:

PDF

Referências


Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836-863.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What We Know and Don't Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of management.

Athanasopoulou, A., & Selsky, J. W. (2012). The Social Context of Corporate Social Responsibility: Enriching Research With Multiple Perspectives and Multiple Levels. Business & society. doi: 10.1177/0007650312449260

Baruch, Y., OCreevy, M. F., Hind, P., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2004). Prosocial behavior and job performance: Does the need for control and the need for achievement make a difference. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 32(4), 399-411.

Basil, D. Z., & Weber, D. (2006). Values motivation and concern for appearances: the effect of personality traits on responses to corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1), 61-72.

Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. The Academy of Management Review ARCHIVE, 33(1), 122-136.

Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and Prosocial Behavior Handbook of psychology: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 20(5), 777-799.

Beckert, J. (2010). How do fields change? The interrelations of institutions, networks, and cognition in the dynamics of markets. Organization Studies, 31(5), 605-627.

Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1-19.

Blindheim, B. T. (2012). Institutional Models of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Proposed Refinement of the Explicit-Implicit Framework. Business & society.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman: Harper.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of management review, 710-725.

Campbell, J. L. (2006). Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate social responsibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 925-938.

Caprar, D. V., & Neville, B. A. (2012). “Norming” and “Conforming”: Integrating Cultural and Institutional Explanations for Sustainability Adoption in Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15.

Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x

Crilly, D., Schneider, S. C., & Zollo, M. (2008). Psychological antecedents to socially responsible behavior. European Management Review, 5(3), 175-190.

Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 43-56.

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of management review, 284-295.

Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2005). A gaiola de ferro revisitada: isomorfismo institucional e racionalidade coletiva nos campos organizacionais. . RAE- Revista de Administração de Empresas, 45(2), 74-89.

Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147-157.

Fransen, L. (2012). Multi-stakeholder governance and voluntary programme interactions: legitimation politics in the institutional design of Corporate Social Responsibility. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 163-192.

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51-71.

Gond, J.-P., & Moon, J. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in retrospect and prospect: Exploring the life-cycle of an essentially contested concept. ICCSR Research Paper Series, 59, 1-40.

Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. The Academy of Management Journal ARCHIVE, 51(5), 898-918.

Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900.

Grant, A. M., Molinsky, A., Margolis, J., Kamin, M., & Schiano, W. (2009). The Performer's Reactions to Procedural Injustice: When Prosocial Identity Reduces Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(2), 319-349.

Grant, A. M., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(1), 13-22. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.07.003

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of management journal, 58-80.

Jackson, G. (2005). Contested boundaries: ambiguity and creativity in the evolution of German codetermination. . In W. STREECK & K. THELEN (Eds.), Beyond continuity: explorations in the dynamics of advanced political economies. (pp. 229-254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jamali, D. (2010). MNCs and international accountability standards through an institutional lens: Evidence of symbolic conformity or decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 617-640.

Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58.

Lee, M.-D. (2011). Configuration of External Influences: The Combined Effects of Institutions and Stakeholders on Corporate Social Responsibility Strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 281-298. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0814-0

Lin-Healy, F., & Small, D. A. (2012). Cheapened altruism: Discounting personally affected prosocial actors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 269-274. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.006

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2008). Thinking of the organization as a system: The role of managerial perceptions in developing a corporate social responsibility strategic agenda. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(3), 413-426.

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational Stages and Cultural Phases: A Critical Review and a Consolidative Model of Corporate Social Responsibility Development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 20-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00278.x

Maon, F., & Swaen, V. (2009). Shaping the Processual View of CSR: A Multipartite Sensemaking-Sensegiving Conceptualization. Procedings of Academy of Management Conference, August 7-11, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). " Implicit" and" explicit" CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424.

Meneghetti, F. K. (2011). O que é um ensaio-teórico? Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 15, 320-332.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

Nijhof, A., & Jeurissen, R. (2006). Editorial: A sensemaking perspective on corporate social responsibility: introduction to the special issue. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 316-322.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 365-392.

Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 259-284.

Schultz, F., & Wehmeier, S. (2010). Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within corporate communications: Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 9-29.

Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests: Sage Publications, Inc.

Secchi, D. (2009). The cognitive side of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 565-581.

Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., & Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(3), 263-281.

Sweet, S., Roome, N., & Sweet, P. (2003). Corporate environmental management and sustainable enterprise: the influence of information processing and decision styles. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(4), 265-277.

Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1999). A institucionalização da teoria institucional. In S. CLEGG, C. HARDY, & W. R. NORD (Eds.), Handbook de estudos organizacionais (Vol. 1, pp. 196-219). São Paulo: Atlas.

Valor, C. (2006). Why do managers give? Applying pro-social behaviour theory to understand firm giving. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 3(1), 17-28.

Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of management journal, 234-254.

Zilber, T. B. (2008). The work of meaning in institutional processes and thinking. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 151-169)). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18256/2237-7956/raimed.v6n2p237-250

Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.






Revista de Administração IMED (RAIMED)               ISSN: 2237-7956                Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração (PPGA/IMED)

Faculdade Meridional – IMED – www.imed.edu.br – Rua Senador Pinheiro, 304 – Bairro Rodrigues – 99070-220 – Passo Fundo – RS – Brasil Tel.: +55 54 3045 6100

 Licença Creative Commons
Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional.