Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become standard practice for many if not most of the business organizations today. Extant CSR research largely assumes positivist, linear, and reductionist epistemologies and frequently invokes a ‘systems theory’ that is unspecified, seemingly taken for granted. The dominance of this conventional approach obscures or conflates significant dynamics that complexity systems theory reveals. This paper develops and compares an emerging complexity theory view of CSR with the more conventional approach. A longitudinal quantitative case study then tests competing hypotheses, permitting an examination of the efficacy of each approach for understanding CSR adoption processes, to our knowledge for the first time.
Two longitudinal surveys of employee attitudes were administered during, and one year after, the rollout of an internal CSR initiative in a Welsh civil society organization. Hypothesis testing led to three anomalous results. First, expected linear increases in employee wellbeing did not persist; second, neither expected nor latent attitude constructs were in evidence; and finally, the only attitude items to increase significantly over time were related to tangible social action and interaction, over and above changes in thinking and beliefs. Complexity theory offers alternative explanations of these results, explanations which we propose be developed to provide a more complete understanding of CSR practice and theory.
company responsibility, complexity theory, corporate social responsibility, high performance work systems, modern working practices, resilience, strategic human resources management, sustainability, sustainability adoption processes
 Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A., What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research Agenda. Journal of Management 38(4), pp. 932–968, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079
 Applebaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. & Kalleberg, A.L., Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000.
 Jin Suh, Y., The role of relational social capital and communication in the relationship between csr and employee attitudes: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(4), pp. 1–14, 2016.
 Hawkin, P., Lovins, A. & Lovins, H., Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution, London: Earthscan, 2010.
 Peloza, J., The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35(6), pp. 1518–1541, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309335188
 Wang, H., Corporate social responsibility: an overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), pp. 534–544, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.5001
 Margolis, J. & Walsh, J., Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, pp. 268–305, 2003. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659
 Starik, M. & Kanashiro, P., Toward a theory of sustainability management: uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious. Organization and Environment, 26(1), pp. 7–30, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026612474958
 Anderson, P., Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), pp. 216–232, 1999.
 McKelvey, B., Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8(4), pp. 352–380, 1997.
 Porter, T., Coevolution as a research framework for organizations and the natural environment. Organization and Environment, 19(4), pp. 479–504, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026606294958
 Robone, A., Jones, A. & Rice, N., Contractural conditions, working conditions and their impact on health and well-being. European Journal of Health Economics, 12, pp. 429–444, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0256-0
 Pfeffer, J., The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press, 1998.
 Huselid, M., The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), pp. 635–672, 1995. https://doi.org/10.2307/256741
 Rothenberg, S., Hull, C. & Tang, C., The impact of human resource management on corporate social performance strengths and concerns. Business and Society, pp. 1–28, 2015.
 Oana, G. & Shahrazad, H’., Does civil society create social entrepreneurs?. In Ideas, ed. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2013, available at: http://anale.steconomiceuoradea.ro/volume/2013/n1/069.pdf.
 Sheehan, M., Garavan, T. & Carbery, R., Innovation and human resource development (HRD). European Journal of Training and Development, 38(1/2), pp. 2–14, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0128
 Barnett, M., Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 32(3), pp. 794–816, 2007. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.25275520
 Combs, J., Hall, A. & Ketchen, D., How much do high-performance work practices matter? a meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), pp. 501–528, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x
 Ko, J. & Smith-Walter, A., The relationship between hrm practices and organizational performance in the public sector: focusing on mediating roles of work attitudes. International Review of Public Administration, 18(3), pp. 209–231, 2013.
 Hull, C. & Rothenberg, S., Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, pp. 781–789. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.675
 Stacey, R., Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation, London: Routledge, 2001.
 Waddock, S., Leading Corporate Citizens: Vision, Values, Value-Added, 3 edn., New York: McGraw Hill, 2009.
 Porter, T. & Derry, R., Sustainability and business in a complex world. Business and Society Review, 117(1), pp. 33–54, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2012.00398.x
 Pogutz, S. & Winn, M., Cultivating ecological knowledge for corporate sustainability: barilla’s innovative approach to sustainable farming. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(6), pp. 435–448, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1916
 Espinoza, A. & Porter, T., Sustainability, complexity and learning: insights from complex systems approaches. The Learning Organization, 18(1), pp. 54–72, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111096000