Investigating the Complexity of Corporate Social Irresponsibility: A configurational analysis of organizational strain factors

Abstract

Corporate social irresponsibility (CSIR) refers to business involvement in events that cause harm to societal stakeholders. Given the damage that CSIR behaviors create, it is critical to advance our understanding of this phenomenon. Yet, CSIR remains under-discussed in organizational studies. This study delves into the multifaceted drivers of CSIR, proposing a novel configurational perspective. We adopt a strain theory perspective to examine the antecedents of CSIR and focus on multiple types of strain: economic strain, complexity strain, and reputational strain. Through the configurational analysis of an original database of 135 publicly listed organizations from 2003 to 2012, we identify two paths, comprising four equifinal configurations of organizational factors that lead to CSIR. Path A includes two configurations of family firms, while Path B represents two configurations of non-family firms involved in CSIR in the absence of economic strain. We contribute to the CSIR literature by showing that (a) CSIR is not solely nor necessarily due to economic strain as previously argued, and (b) family and non-family firms engage in CSIR differently, as illustrated by the two causal paths. We challenge the prevailing notion that firms engage in CSIR only when facing economic strain. Our findings indicate that the non-family firms most active in CSIR are those that either do not experience economic strain or do not experience any form of strain. Conversely, we show that family firms behave irresponsibly when facing multiple forms of strain simultaneously, consistent with the idea that, under duress, these organizations prioritize the family over other stakeholders. These insights underscore the need for a nuanced approach to addressing and mitigating CSIR. We discuss implications for theory and practice.