‘‘Managing’’ Corporate

Community Involvement

Judith M. van der VoortKatherina Glac

Lucas C.P.M. Meijs

ABSTRACT. In academic research, many attempts have

been undertaken to legitimize corporate community

involvement by showing a business case for it. However,

much less attention has been devoted to building

understanding about the actual dynamics and challenges

of managing CCI in the business context. As an alterna-

tive to existing predominantly static and top-down

approaches, this paper introduces a social movement

framework for analyzing CCI management. Based on the

analysis of qualitative case study data, we argue that the

active role of employees pressuring for CCI policies and

practices, as well as the organization audience responses to

their efforts, are at the core of the challenges involved in

managing CCI. These challenges also pose limits to how

far CCI can be extended to a ‘‘business as usual’’ activity.

KEY WORDS: corporate community involvement, cor-

porate social responsibility, employee volunteering, social

movement, framing, mobilization, double-edged effect,

qualitative research, case study research

ABBREVIATIONS: CCI:Corporate community involve

ment; CSR: Corporate social responsibility; SMO: Social

movement organization; HR(M): Human resource man-

agement

Corporate community involvement (CCI), which

refers to the provision of goods and services to non-

profit and civic organizations by corporations (Burke

et al., 1986), is an issue that is often treated as merely a

peripheral component of corporate strategy or even as

falling outside of legitimate business endeavors. Despite

this peripheral status, the amount of money spent on

such activities has been on the rise, as have the variety

and organizational complexity of CCI activities. For

example, a 2007 analysis of corporate giving by 155

leading US companies showed that the total amount

spent by the surveyed companies on cash and non-cash

giving in 2007 was 11.6 billion dollars, which is around

1% of pre-tax profits (Committee Encouraging

Corporate Philanthropy, 2008). The survey also

revealed that 88% of the surveyed corporations had

corporate foundations for organizing CCI and spent a

significant amount of funds on the administration and

management of CCI (around 6% of the total giving

amount). Furthermore, many companies had multiple

national and international outlets for their giving

and engaged in a wide variety of community involve-

ment projects, thus further increasing the demand for

organization and management (American Association

of Fund-Raising Counsel, 2008).

Perhaps due to the amount of money dedicated to

corporate giving, several attempts have been under-

taken to legitimize CCI by making a business case for it

(Griffin and Mahon, 1997; McWilliams and Siegel,

2001). Despite the increasing complexity of CCI,

however, much less attention has been devoted to

building an understanding about the management of

CCI and the challenges that can arise in this context.

For example, in response to pressures for a strategic

approach to CCI, managers might attempt to institu-

tionalize grassroots corporate social activities (Saiia

et al., 2003), as the corporate context offers many

opportunities for doing so. In response to such insti-

tutionalization efforts, managers might encounter

unexpected side effects and resistance from stakehold-

ers. The organizational dynamics existing between

pressures for and responses to CCI management have

not been studied in detail.

A number of researchers have documented and

begun to examine the risks and complexities that

managers of CCI face as they attempt to bring

corporate social activities into the realm of standard

business practice (Choi and Wang, 2007; Ellen et al.,

2006; Peterson, 2004). These studies draw upon

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 90:311–329 � Springer 2009DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0051-y

social psychology to explore the critical intervening

processes that may underlie the reception of CCI by

a company’s stakeholders. While providing impor-

tant insight, this work neither considers the active

role that employees can take in pressuring for CCI

policies and practices, nor addresses the responses of

the organization’s audience to their efforts. We

argue, however, that the interplay between these

actors is at the core of the challenges involved in

managing CCI within an organization.

As an alternative to existing approaches, most of

which are top-down (i.e., focused on the power and

activities of managers) and static (i.e., excluding

change from the analysis), this paper introduces a

social movement framework for analyzing CCI. In

line with Rao et al. (2000, p. 244), we define social

movements as ‘‘organized collective endeavors to

solve social problems […] that occur over longer

term time stretches, are driven by long-term goals,

and develop formal organizations.’’ By presenting

CCI through this lens, this paper provides a more

complete and dynamic picture of CCI management

challenges than previous studies. Understanding the

complexities of CCI management is an important

addition to the debate about strategizing corporate

social activities, as it shows the double-edged effects

that can confront managers. Double-edged effects

are the practical limits and unexpected or unwanted

audience effects arising from the development of

CCI strategy.

The social movement framework is particularly

suitable for this analysis for two reasons. First, in

contrast to existing static approaches to understanding

CCI, the social movement framework appreciates the

active role of organizational agents and the tactics they

choose to influence their audiences’ reception of CCI.

Second, the social movement framework also allows

us to draw on related work in the field of organiza-

tional studies. This research also uses social movement

theory to examine the dynamics of non-standard

business practices in organizations (Spicer and Bohm,

2007; Zald and Berger, 1978). For example, processes

resembling social movements have been identified as

triggers of organizational change (Den Hond and De

Bakker, 2007; McAdam and Scott, 2005).

This paper proceeds as follows. We begin by

highlighting the tensions and problems in the debate

concerning CCI to demonstrate the need for a new

approach to understanding CCI. We then describe

the central ideas of social movement theory and

apply these concepts to CCI using an in-depth case

study of CCI in a Dutch financial conglomerate.

The paper concludes with an analysis of the dilem-

mas and double-edged effects of CCI leadership that

become apparent when applying a social movement

perspective.

From confusion and contests

to complexities: the evolution of CCI

Both managerial and scholarly attention to CCI and

other socially responsible corporate behaviors have

been booming since the 1950s. Despite its relatively

long history, the literature on CCI reflects an ongoing

conceptual debate about the relationship of CCI with

the broader corporate social responsibility (CSR)

movement (Carroll, 1999; Godfrey and Hatch, 2007).

The same debate appears in the literature on related

topics, including corporate philanthropy (Seifert et al.,

2003), corporate social initiatives (Hess et al., 2002),

and charitable giving (Brammer and Millington,

2004).

One possible reason for the continuing flux in the

conceptual debate is the relatively broad conceptu-

alization of CSR (Carroll, 2006). Carroll (1979)

considers CSR to encompass ‘‘the economic, legal,

ethical and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations

that society has of organizations at a given point in

time’’ (p. 500). Depending upon the interpretation

of these expectations, CCI can thus be considered as

a synonym, as an aspect of, and even a measure for

CSR (Barnett, 2007; Carroll, 1999; Keim, 1978).

This conceptual ambiguity reflects the social con-

structionist nature of these practices: ‘‘socially respon-

sible corporate behaviors may mean different things

in different places to different people and at different

times’’ (Campbell, 2007, p. 950).

Acknowledging that terminology in this area of

research is still in flux; we do not add another separate

definition of CCI, choosing instead to delineate the

phenomena we are addressing here. Consistent with

Burke et al. (1986), we define CCI as the donation of

funds, the contribution of goods and services, and the

volunteering of time by company employees that is

aimed toward non-profit and civic organizations.

Because many sources subsume CCI under CSR, we

will draw on the CSR literature to inform our analysis

312 Judith M. van der Voort et al.

while keeping our focus on CCI and more spe-

cifically, employee volunteering. Employee volun-

teering involves volunteer services performed by

employees who are in some way encouraged and

supported by employers in the form of formal and

informal policies and programs (Tschirhart, 2005).

We emphasize employee volunteering for three

reasons. First, this aspect of CCI reflects a broader move

toward employee activities in the area of corporate

social initiatives (Hess et al., 2002). Second, leadership

challenges are most clearly manifested in situations in

which active employee participation and involvement

is warranted. Third, employee volunteering is central

to theCCI policyof our case study and, more generally,

to the Dutch interpretation of CCI.

Similar to CSR, CCI remains a topic of debate.

Debates concerning CSR and CCI center on a tension

about the role of socially responsible business activities

in the overall business context. One perspective is that

CSR and CCI activities are not normal business prac-

tices. They are peripheral to the core objectives of a

company, and therefore, are not directly connected to

the bottom line. Furthermore, these activities involve

personal values and emotions more than other business

issues do (Howard-Grenville and Hoffman, 2003).

Another perspective is a strategic stance toward

CSR (Porter and Kramer, 2002) and CCI (Buchholtz

et al., 1999) that attempts to legitimize these activities

by framing them as normal business practice. For

example, Godfrey and Hatch (2007) argue that CCI

investments trigger a ‘‘balance sheet effect through

which firms build long-term loyalty, legitimacy, trust,

or brand equity that reinforce the corporation’s other

strategic objectives’’ (2007, p. 88). Hemphill (1999)

refers to this strategic approach as the dual purpose of

contributing funds to charitable non-profit causes that

simultaneously benefit the firm’s bottom-line and

political legitimacy.

The strategic stance implies a proactive, top-down

corporate approach toward CCI. In this approach, the

programs and activities are designed to fit a corpora-

tion’s core competencies, strategy, and values (Husted

and Allen, 2000) and to produce measurable benefits

to the firm (Hess et al., 2002). A similar move toward

the blending of strategic and social goals has been seen

for some time in the larger CSR literature (Porter and

Kramer, 2002).

Several authors have questioned the feasibility of a

strategic approach to CCI (Barnett, 2007; Margolis

and Walsh, 2003; Rowley and Berman, 2000). They

argue that the ‘‘seemingly tractable business case for

CSR remains just as debatable as the associated

ethical dilemma’’ (Barnett, 2007, p. 795). According

to Rowley and Berman (2000), more research

attention should be paid to uncovering the internal

and external (case-specific) drivers of CCI to build

an understanding of the complexities involved in

managing CCI. A number of efforts have been taken

in that direction.

For example, Saiia and colleagues (2003) draw on

CCI officers’ accounts to show how a perceived

pressure from within the company has triggered the

shift toward a strategic stance. CCI officers experi-

enced pressure to justify their existence, prove their

value added to the bottom-line, increase the strategic

content of their activities, and professionalize their

practices accordingly (Saiia et al., 2003). Others have

documented that the business impact of social

initiatives is less than expected, as not all stakeholders

value these initiatives (Peterson, 2004) or consider

them genuine (Sen and Bhattacharaya, 2001). On

the contrary, efforts to gain or maintain (external)

legitimacy by engaging in CCI activities may

actually backfire due to stakeholder skepticism

(Palazzo and Richter, 2005).

A similar line of reasoning applies to employee

volunteering. A few authors stress the positive impact

of management support in recruiting employees for

volunteer programs (Bartel, 2001; Peloza and Hassay,

2006). Very recent studies, however, have started to

uncover the potential double-edged effects of such

top-down programs. Tschirhart and St. Clair (2008)

identify a number of aspects in the management of

employee volunteering programs that may trigger

employee skepticism. The degree of skepticism

depends on how the employees view volunteer work

and whether they desire a link with corporate

objectives. It also depends on perceived pressure to

participate and the degree of emphasis on recognition

and rewards.

The above-mentioned study provides an indication

of the complex nature of dealing with CCI in a

workplace context. Managers face a dilemma. They

must deal with the potentially conflicting pressures

and constraints posed by organizational dynamics.

At the same time, they must also consider wider

environmental influences, including the broader

external social movement that is pressuring for

‘‘Managing’’ Corporate Community Involvement 313

increased CSR and for a strategic approach to these

activities (Clemens and Minkoff, 2004; Raeburn,

2004). In contrast, Bowen (2007) argues that having a

corporate social strategy is not the same as imple-

menting one, and that it ‘‘may be more complex,

contradictory, political and contested than simple

top-down explanations of corporate strategy might

suggest’’ (2007, p. 109). Bowen argues in favor of a

more interpretative research framework in which the

interpretations, experiences, and actions of a wider

variety of organizational members are taken into

account.

Other studies have begun to move in that direction

as well. For example, several studies examine the role

of organizational actors involved in processes similar

to those inherent in the management of employee

volunteering and CCI more generally (Andersson and

Bateman, 2000; Dutton and Ashford, 1993). None-

theless, the predominant approach of this existing

research remains top-down and static. It does not

systematically consider the dynamics between the

attitudes and actions of internal agents pressuring for

CCI policies and practices, and the attitudes and

(re)actions of their internal and external audiences. In

addition, more attention should to be paid to the role

of the business context and the broader environment

in facilitating and constraining these dynamics.

Although some empirical work shows how certain

environmental and company-specific factors influ-

ence the level and substance of corporate giving

(Brammer and Millington, 2004; Keim, 1978), it does

not provide a clear insight into how such factors affect

or are affected by processes of interpretation and

influence.

The following section briefly introduces the central

concepts of social movement theory. It shows how a

social movement perspective can help focus attention

on the critical issues of CCI management, particularly

as they arise in attempts to institutionalize CCI by

framing it as standard business practice. A case study is

then presented to illustrate the management chal-

lenges of CCI through the social movement lens.

A social movement approach

to understanding CCI

The social movement literature provides a coherent

framework for developing a better understanding of

the role of employees as activists in mobilizing their

colleagues’ community involvement. It specifically

draws attention to the processes by which support

for CCI may be won or lost. It also highlights the

controversy and politics involved in the interactions

between activist and their audience and to the

double-edged effects that may result from the

choices activists make in their efforts to realize their

goals (Strang and Jung, 2005).

McAdam et al. (1996) provide the foundations of

this framework. They draw on several streams of social

movement theory to identify three factors that com-

bine to explain the unique challenges of dealing with

CCI in a business context: 1) the opportunities and

constraints confronting a social movement, 2) the

mobilizing structures available to movement actors,

and 3) the framing processes (i.e., the collective

processes of interpretation, attribution, and social

construction) that characterize the interactions

between the leaders of CCI and the other organiza-

tional members. After a brief description of the three

factors, this paper illustrates how these factors are

reflected in CCI at one Dutch company and which

management challenges are associated with each factor.

We focus particularly on the issue of framing, as this

social movement factor is at the center of the ongoing

CCI mobilization challenge, as argued below.

Political opportunities refer to the environmental

mechanisms that are at play in the wider context

in which movement actors operate and that may

facilitate or constrain social movement activity

(Campbell, 2005). Examples of such opportunities

include specific events in the broader political, cul-

tural, and social environment (Klandermans, 1997).

The structural characteristics of these events deter-

mine which repertoires of action, frames, and modes

of organization are considered legitimate (Zald,

1996). Within the workplace movement literature,

Raeburn (2004) has identified four categories of

workplace-specific opportunities that may also

facilitate (or constrain when absent) positive move-

ment outcomes. The presence of cultural support and

influential allies are examples of such institutional

opportunities. The central arguments in the literature

are that opportunities and constraints are socially

constructed and therefore prone to manipulation and

that movement actors require access to mobilizing

structures to act upon these opportunities and con-

straints (Davis and McAdam, 2000).

314 Judith M. van der Voort et al.

Social movement activity of any sort requires

the acquisition of resources, including legitimacy,

money, and personnel. The mobilization of these

resources requires some degree of organization or

structure (McCarthy and Zald, 1977). McAdam

(1988) refers to these mobilizing structures as micro-

mobilization contexts, or ‘‘any formal organizations,

informal networks, or social relationships that serve

to ‘pull’ the potential recruit into action’’ (1988,

p. 142). As a preset structure, the workplace context

presumably simplifies the mobilization of resources,

including the recruitment of active participants.

Activists ‘‘are known to each other, share a context

and set of grievances, and are already assembled in

the convenient meeting place of their organization’’

(Scully and Segal, 2002, p. 151).

Although some degree of organization or formal

structure is beneficial to the emergence and growth

of social movements, it may also prove to be a

double-edged sword, as the survival of an organized

social movement may come at the expense of the

achievement of the movement’s social goals

(Campbell, 2005). Markowitz and Tice (2002) refer

to this risk of goal transformation as the paradox of

professionalization. Their empirical work shows how

professionalization1 may attract institutional support

(i.e., ‘‘the monetary and infrastructural resources

from established institutions.’’ see Schwartz and Paul,

1992, p. 211), but may also force actors in the

movement to make trade-offs regarding the move-

ment’s agenda for social change.

The latter is especially prevalent in workplace

contexts. Employee activists may challenge the

organizational elite (e.g., top management or a

foundation board) as part of their agenda on social

change, even though they also need elite support to

realize that change (Scully and Segal, 2002). The

support that activists seek in the context of CCI is

two-fold. Organizations provide opportunities to

change the behaviors of individuals within them and

to involve these individuals in the social movement.

Organizations also provide resources to address

directly the social ills targeted by the social move-

ment. While organizational support can be helpful

for the social movement, it also creates dependen-

cies. In order to maintain organizational support,

social movements tend to become more mainstream.

In other words, they become more tied to the core

objectives of the organization through such activities

as strengthening the bottom line and focusing on core

competencies of employees. Mobilizing structures

thus not only provide context in which movement

activists try to change how organizational members

see social issues, but also are themselves subject of

ongoing debates about how the movement should be

interpreted (McCarthy, 1996).

How individuals interpret and make sense of events

and situations depends heavily on the cognitive

schemata, or frames, that are activated by the situation

(Weick, 1995). For example, some employees might

interpret employee volunteering as an impersonal

team-building exercise. Others might interpret it as a

personal altruistic experience. In the first case, the

cognitive schema that is active falls under the ‘‘work’’

category, while the cognitive schema in the second

case falls more under the ‘‘lifestyle’’ category.

Framing processes are vital to social movement activity

because ‘‘the very existence of social movements

indicates that differences exist regarding the meaning of

some aspect of reality’’ (Benford and Hunt, 1992,

p. 37). In most cases, core activists are actively engaged

in the production of meaning, and they draw upon

collective action frames for mobilization purposes.

Mobilization refers to the ‘‘interactions between a

movement and its constituency’’ (Klandermans, 1988,

p. 388) and involves two challenges: consensus mobi-

lization (i.e., the generation of attitudinal support) and

action mobilization (i.e., the generation of behavioral

support). The notion of consensus mobilization or

frame alignment suggests that movement actors may

draw upon the way others interpret a social issue to

align with the meaning system of those they would like

to mobilize (Creed et al., 2002). This could mean that,

even though movement activists might interpret CCI

as an altruistic activity, it might be necessary for them to

embrace different interpretations and emphasize dif-

ferent aspects of CCI to involve other organizational

members. For example, movement activists could

emphasize the organizational or individual benefits that

CCI can bring to those who participate and portray

CCI as competency development or team building.

The effectiveness of these attempts in legitimating and

mobilizing action ‘‘stems from the social construction

of congruence between the activists’ interpretations

and goals and those of the target audience’’ (Creed

et al., 2002, p. 480).

The central thrust of the framing in social

movement literature is that framing processes can be

‘‘Managing’’ Corporate Community Involvement 315

problematic and contested (Tarrow, 1998). Benford

and Snow (2000) refer in this respect to the notion

of audience effects. Individuals or groups may have

political or strategic considerations not to participate

in social movement activity or to engage in acts of

counter-framing or counter-mobilization instead. A

common example of framing and counter-framing

can be observed around the issue of abortion.

Proponents of abortion rights frame their movement

as ‘‘pro-choice,’’ thus invoking cognitive schemata

associated with individual freedoms and focusing the

audience on the notion of rights. On the other hand,

opponents of abortion rights frame their movement

as ‘‘pro-life,’’ thus shifting the frame away from

rights toward cognitive schemata of life and death.

Framing may also have unintended and/or unde-

sired consequences (Snow et al., 1986). In this respect,

Gerhards (1995) refers to a tendency among movement

actors to use multiple and broad frames to appeal to a

larger audience, thereby running a risk of overexten-

sion. Overextension is the tendency to overemphasize

the more general and commonly accepted cultural

frames (e.g., the bottom-line rationale for CCI) and

underemphasize the emotional aspects of the issue

(such as altruism). Gamson (2004) adds that such broad,

inclusive frames make social movements more inter-

nally differentiated and more prone to internal conflict.

Benford and Hunt (1992) therefore conclude that

movement actors must find the right balance between

heterogeneity and focus, while managing on ‘‘a razor’s

edge between institutionalization and isolation’’

(Tarrow, 1998, p. 138).

Applying these ideas to the management of CCI in

the business context, we argue that a similar ‘‘razor’s

edge’’ can be identified. Core activists extend their

framing of CCI from an individual, isolated and

grassroots activity to CCI as a corporate strategic

practice. Although this frame extension is intended to

increase the number of employee volunteers and to

institutionalize CCI among (top) management, it also

increases internal conflict. In other words, a shift to-

ward treating CCI as standard business practice and

emphasizing the strategic approach to CCI is closely

tied to problems associated with frame overextension

and mobilization more generally, as discussed in the

social movement literature.

In the remainder of the paper, we introduce our

case study to illustrate how the social movement

dynamics and associated leadership challenges play

out in the business context. One of the central

elements in social movement dynamics are decision

frames: the schemata on which individuals draw to

make sense of events (Weick, 1995). We therefore

begin by describing the development and change of

the CCI movement frames in the organization that

was studied. To supplement this broader picture and

clearly illustrate the management challenges that

CCI leaders face, we describe why and how the CCI

leaders extended the CCI frames and what problems

they encountered due to the different ways in

which their organization’s audience received the

frame extension.

Methodology

This paper draws on the results of a qualitative study

(August 2005–April 2008) on the micro-dynamics of

framing CCI in a Dutch financial conglomerate

(approximately 11,000 employees in the Nether-

lands).2 We chose this organization for three reasons.

First, the case represents a best practice in CCI and

employee volunteering in the Netherlands. Second,

this organization has explicit ambitions to lead the

broader CCI movement in the Netherlands. Third,

we had established access through our prior involve-

ment with the organization. Because the study was

conducted in several different divisions of a large

conglomerate, our data represents a sample of large

companies in the financial services sector that are

especially prone to engaging in community involve-

ment initiatives (Brammer and Millington, 2003).

We decided on a qualitative case study approach to

explore and explain the complexity of CCI as a social

phenomenon and to explain ‘‘the world of lived

experience from the point of view of those who live

it’’ (Locke, 2001, p. 8; Yin, 2003). Similar to Rynes

and Gephart Jr. (2004), we consider qualitative

research a highly descriptive effort that is grounded in

a social constructionist approach to organizational

phenomena and that can be used to show how existing

theory may operate in specific cases. The original aim

of the study was to uncover the legitimacy debate with

regard to CCI and the role of strategic considerations

therein. Semi-structured interviews were conducted,

in addition to many informal conversations and

observations of CCI staff meetings, employee-

volunteering activities, and several focus groups of

316 Judith M. van der Voort et al.

organizational members (organized and led by an

external consultant as part of a larger stakeholder

research). We triangulated data sources (Flick, 2002) by

interviewing over 60 organizational members, including

CCI staff, managers from diverse hierarchical positions,

staff members, and employees. Each interview lasted

between 45 and 120 min and was transcribed in full for

coding purposes. We also collected more than 2,000

pages of relevant documents, including minutes from

CCI staff meetings, annual reports, intranet postings, and

several drafts on a strategic communication plan. We

used qualitative data analysis software for coding pur-

poses (Miles and Huberman, 1994). For validation

purposes, we presented our emerging insights to key

informants (in 2007 and 2008).

Our preliminary data collection efforts focused on

the experiences and understanding of CCI staff and

some CCI enthusiasts. We asked them about their

interpretation of CCI issues, as well as about their

motivations, aspirations, roles, and experiences.

Although we had prepared several open questions on

paper in advance, the interviews were primarily led

by the responses of our interviewees. Repeated

reviews of the transcripts were complemented

with the analysis of organizational documents and

observations in the field. Several interesting themes

emerged. We found variation in how the employees

understood and responded to the social issues.

Evolution was another important theme. In addition

to changes in the employees’ understanding of the

issues over time, we also observed changes in the

CCI practices and tactics that were used to recruit

organizational members and to legitimize CCI.

These changes resulted in internal tensions, which

highlighted the potential negative consequences of

top management involvement in CCI. We also

observed that the CCI leaders used a wide variety of

tactics to increase legitimacy and participation, as

well as to ‘‘sell’’ CCI. Existing literature on tactics

including literature on legitimation, issue selling,

championing, and upward influence (Andersson and

Bateman, 2000; Dutton and Ashford, 1993) proved

useful in explaining this observation by drawing our

attention to individual behavior and influence, to the

role of context in tactics choice, and most impor-

tantly, to the notion of issue framing as a selling

tactic. It was only by tracing the origins of this

concept that we were first introduced to the social

movement literature.

Informed by the insights of our preliminary

analysis and the above-mentioned literature, we

continued our research efforts by interviewing a

highly varied sample of organizational members,

including the insurance business line’s CEO and

several (senior) account managers and personnel

department staff. We asked them about their back-

grounds and their attitudes toward CCI. We were

also interested in their beliefs about the motives their

companies had for investing in CCI. Additional

questions focused on their views about CCI prac-

tices and recruitment tactics as well as the role of top

management in CCI leadership. We were surprised

by the highly varied and sometimes very critical

content of interviewee responses. Early coding of

these materials revealed a large set of diverse ‘‘ten-

sions’’ among audience responses and CCI staff.

These tensions suggested several double-edged effects

of CCI.

In the following sections, we combine the insights

and results from our analyses with more detailed

accounts of our data to report on the various facets of

the case study. Condensing the steps that are usually

reported separately in qualitative studies allows us to

present three different aspects of the research (i.e.,

the shift of frames, CCI leadership perspective, and

audience responses) in a single paper. We draw upon

all three perspectives to highlight the main contri-

bution of our paper – the double-edged effects and

dilemmas in CCI management. A more detailed

qualitative analysis is available from the authors.

The evolution of the internal movement:

from personal to business concern

The company that is the subject of this case study has

a rich history of CCI, going as far back as 1997. In

order to provide a structured, chronological account

of the development of CCI over the years (and as an

additional check to the retrospective accounts given

by CCI staff in their interviews), we examined a

large number of documents, including intranet

postings, annual reports, and CCI staff minutes of

foundation board meetings and staff meetings. The

analysis focused on identifying chronological phases

(as opposed to universalistic patterns or stages) in the

development of CCI over time. Based on our

analysis, we identified five distinct phases. The

‘‘Managing’’ Corporate Community Involvement 317

issue’s distinct phasing is based on changes that we

identified in the documents regarding issue framing

and the tactics used to mobilize organizational

members, the goals of the CCI program, the

assumptions about the conditions of the internal and

external organizational environment,3 or any com-

bination of these aspects. Appendix Table I provides

an overview of the five phases, including represen-

tative quotations.

Phase 1: Thriving bottom-up enthusiasm (1997–

2000): In this phase, engagement in CCI is

framed as a private affair and an individual choice.

A communication manager utilizes a change of

corporate logo and a related change in corporate

values as an institutional opportunity to trigger

discussions on core values, corporate branding,

and employee behaviors. Supported by a vision-

ary CEO, she is able to develop a CCI project in

which employees may request a donation for the

causes for which they volunteer.

Phase 2: The emergence of a social movement organiza-

tion (2000–2001): This phase differs from the first,

in that explicit attention is paid to the develop-

ment of formal mobilizing structures with respect

to CCI. Documents on CCI report an emerging

need to establish a separate structure in the shape

of a foundation consisting of seven staff members

to preserve a sense of authenticity, autonomy, and

integrity. In addition, a basis is laid for a local em-

ployee-mobilizing structure in which active early

enthusiasts take seat.

Phase 3: Framing CCI as a HR tool (2002–2003):

In this phase, several early steps are taken to bring

CCI closer to the business by emphasizing the

‘‘qualitative dimension of CCI.’’ Rather than focus-

ing on personal growth, CCI documents report

on competency development and other human

resource management (HRM) concepts to stress

the ‘‘win–win’’ character of CCI ‘‘investments.’’ In

addition to collaboration with HRM staff, the

foundation staff also engage in a ‘‘pull strategy’’ by

giving advice and providing custom-made solu-

tions to staff units and business lines.

Phase 4: Toward a management focus in mobilization

(2004–2006): The fourth phase represents a clear

break in practices, as CCI staff choose to include a

top-down approach to mobilization. The goal

of this approach is to stimulate a sense of issue

ownership among the various layers of manage-

ment and to make up for what they believe are the

lagging results of the original framing of the issue.

Phase 5: Toward CCI as standard business practice

(from 2007 to present): In the final phase, founda-

tion staff members aim to implement a strategic

plan to ensure that members of the organization

will perceive participation in CCI as standard busi-

ness practice. Externally, they aspire to assume a

leadership role in professionalizing the broader

movement. Internally, they aim to frame CCI as a

‘‘strategic instrument’’ and ‘‘collective responsibility.’’

Taken together, these phases reflect a rigorous frame

extension over time. In the original framing (grassroots

approach), engagement in CCI is a personal choice, and

mobilization depends on bottom-up employee efforts.

Grounded in the assumption that community impact

stems from a multitude of small-scale, individual acts of

community involvement, program design is steered by

individual preferences. CCI is a non-standard business

practice in that it is separate from the business and is

driven by a willingness to assume responsibility for

expanding the broader CCI movement.

The new strategic management framing that has

emerged over the years emphasizes the business

context instead. Because CCI is a business concern,

participation is a management responsibility, and

mobilization is subject to the working of the hierar-

chy. This framing is driven by a sense of competition

with other companies with regard to CCI policies and

the impact they have in the community. Strategic

framing implies a preference for focusing CCI pro-

grams over a multitude of initiatives, assuming that

more community and business impact can be realized

by tying a company’s core competencies to specific

causes. In the next section, we describe how the core

activists in the CCI movement have managed this shift

from a grassroots to a strategic frame, as well as the

challenges that they have encountered in the process.

The core activists’ view

Drawing upon information from interviews and

informal conversations with CCI staff and from the

observation of their practices, we were able to

reconstruct the core activists’ view of the evolution

of CCI. The CCI leaders who were interviewed

318 Judith M. van der Voort et al.

identified several tensions they face when making

decisions about how to manage the development of

CCI within their organization. Because CCI leaders

attempt to extend the CCI frames and mobilize

employees, they have to consider the effects that

their efforts have on their audiences. They must

navigate and build organizational support structures

while simultaneously considering the ongoing influ-

ences and limitations from the external environment.

The types of tensions CCI leaders experience are listed

and illustrated with quotations in Appendix Table II

and described further below.

At the beginning of the CCI movement, the CCI

leaders had high ambitions, but mobilization proved

more strenuous than expected. The desired beneficial

effects on corporate image and employee development

did not materialize. Foundation staff members attrib-

uted these disappointing results to the original framing

of CCI as a personal choice and a bottom-up employee

initiative with an implicit emphasis on community

impact. Because of the highly diversified and broad set

of low-barrier and ad hoc volunteer activities resulting

from this framing, mobilization remained a labor-

intensive process. It did not trigger issue commitment

beyond the core group of enthusiasts nor did it generate

a shared sense of issue ownership among management.

The staff realized that they needed to change their

practices, especially if they wanted to retain their

leadership role among other companies also actively

engaged in CCI.

The members of the CCI staff believed that in

order to improve mobilization, it would be neces-

sary to centralize CCI activities and draw more

explicitly from the business organization’s unique

characteristics (i.e., its membership, hierarchy, and

business logics). Active support from senior man-

agement as issue ambassadors was assumed crucial

for portraying CCI as expected, in-role behavior

and for triggering issue commitment, especially

among middle management. The foundation staff

also expected to be able to convince the organiza-

tion’s employees of the added value of participation

in CCI by staying close to their daily operations and

business objectives rather than emphasizing personal

or private benefits. To turn participation in CCI

activities into standard business practice, members

of the foundation staff framed CCI as a strate-

gic instrument. In this frame, CCI emphasized

competency development, customer relationship

management, and reputation management instead of

such private goals as fun. The benefit of CCI

activities to the communities was considered only

after the benefit to the business had been considered.

The core activists’ interpretation of the added value

of the business context rests on the assumption that it is

possible to expand the support base for CCI beyond

early sympathizers by making explicit use of the

employees’ organizational membership and by drawing

on a completely different (instrumental) motivation

that better suits a business context. We argue, however,

that explicitly framing (or re-framing) CCI as a business

concern may actually complicate rather than facilitate

the projected interaction between the internal social

movement (i.e., the development of CCI in the

organization) and the external social movement (i.e.,

the increased demand for corporate responsibility by

the larger social environment). We believe that this

reframing implies a shift from a situation in which the

internal and external social movement are aligned (i.e.,

both address the community involvement of individ-

uals and are aimed at community relief) to a situation in

which they are also in conflict, due to the interference

of the business context. In the next section, we draw on

data gathered from other members of the organization

(i.e., the ‘‘audience’’) to show specifically how this

framing generated several double-edged effects and

which management challenges arose as a result.

Reframing from the audience’s perspective:

dilemmas and double-edged effects

Although they expressed strong belief in the added

value of a strategic management approach to CCI,

members of the foundation staff indicated several

practical impediments in the process of realizing

the frame extension. According to CCI staff, real-

izing such a rigorous frame extension required more

time and effort than expected. More generally, they

referred to the additional capacity needed to invest

in connecting their activities to the business, espe-

cially since they hoped to also retain their grassroots

origins. In addition to these practical issues, they

acknowledged a potential risk in stretching the

commercial orientation of CCI: ‘‘If you go too far in

the direction of the business, you start to forget that

your original aim was to do something for the

community; you miss something there as well.’’

‘‘Managing’’ Corporate Community Involvement 319

Based on the observations above, we argue that

there are practical boundaries to the framing or

reframing of CCI as a business concern. Workplace

activists might go too far in assuming a strategic

management approach. This could create a leader-

ship paradox involving the need to manage the

interests of the company while keeping an eye on

the interests of both their own movement and those

of the broader, external CCI movement.

Our interview study into the attitudes and

behaviors of the organizational audience regarding

CCI and the foundation reflects this conclusion as

well. It points to a second, ideological, set of

boundaries to the process of framing or reframing

CCI as a business concern. The data indicate that a

shift toward a strategic approach (and away from a

grassroots approach) can be controversial and that it

can trigger an ideological debate among CCI

participants. A central point in this debate is what we

refer to as the ownership dilemma in CCI, which

consists of two related but ideologically separate

disputes. The two types of ownership dilemmas are

listed and illustrated with quotations in Appendix

Table III.

First, the private–professional connection in relation to

CCI is controversial. A distinction can be made

between employees who explicitly separate their

private from their professional lives and those who

are not ideologically opposed to combining the two.

For those who view volunteering solely as a private

activity, the growth of CCI within the organization is

problematic by definition, as it implies that corporate

membership can be used to stimulate activities that

they consider private. To these employees, partici-

pation in CCI activities is relevant to neither their

jobs nor their environments.

Employees (including management) who do not

necessarily consider an overlap between their private

and professional lives as problematic might never-

theless differ in the extent to which they consider

company intervention acceptable with respect to

CCI. Although some organizational members con-

sidered CCI separate from their job functions, they

nonetheless considered the organizational context an

attractive venue for mobilizing support for their pet

projects, as well as for acting upon their desire to do

good. Other employees recognized the value of

CCI to their work (e.g., they can refer to CCI

in conversations with clients) and/or perceived

participation in CCI as in-role behavior (e.g., it is

what a manager is supposed to do).

While the primary focus of the first dispute involves

the ways in which organizational members under-

stand CCI and their role identities, the second dispute

centers on goals, means, and mobilization tactics. This

dispute contrasts a local (bottom-up) approach to the

management of CCI with a central (top-down)

approach. The two approaches differ with respect to

the organization of CCI within the business domain,

the strategies and tactics that may be used to mobilize

participation, and the prioritization of goals.

With regard to CCI organization, some employees

criticize the current situation for being too local,

small-scale, and internally focused, while others

consider it too central, large-scale, and externally

oriented. In terms of acceptable mobilization strate-

gies, some find it appropriate to draw on tactics that

narrow individual choice and restrict the voluntary

and private character of CCI for the benefit of the

company. Others find such restrictions highly objec-

tionable. Our data show that a central, top-down

approach to CCI is generally more problematic for

some organizational members. Those who are already

active at the local level tend to perceive this approach

as a threat to their autonomy. For others, a central

approach to CCI is problematic by definition, as

organizational identification among some (new)

business units is low.

The two disputes represent the ideological

boundaries that organizational members may perceive.

One boundary emerges in relation to the reframing

of CCI from a grassroots approach to a strategic

approach. A second boundary emerges in relation to

the organization of CCI, a central, top-down man-

agement responsibility rather than a local, bottom-up

initiative. Different organizational members value or

criticize different combinations of framing and orga-

nization. The combinations to which they are most

responsive depend upon their interpretations of the

social issues, the relationship between their profes-

sional and private roles, their perceptions of the

foundation’s ambitions and practices, their views of the

tactics used for mobilizing CCI, and their interpreta-

tions of the organization and environment.

Regardless of their readiness to engage in CCI or

their attitudes toward this form of involvement, the

majority of employees in our research suggested that

the foundation staff might have gone too far in

320 Judith M. van der Voort et al.

assuming a strategic management approach to CCI.

Our interviews point to several potential or existing

negative consequences (i.e., double-edged effects)

associated with the adoption of a central, top-down,

approach to CCI. These double-edged effects are

categorized and illustrated with quotations in

Appendix Table IV.

First, employees feared the negative consequences

of professionalizing CCI activities and framing CCI as

a standard business practice. One of these fears was that

the foundation staff would lose sight of the unique

characteristics of CCI. Although a structural approach

may lead to more community and business impact,

some employees expressed a fear that efforts to

professionalize CCI could cause it to become too

pragmatic and casual. In addition, all interviewed

employees considered the explicit introduction of the

business context as an additional constraint rather than

a stimulus for CCI-related action. Such constraints

can trigger a sense of loose coupling. Some members

of the organization hinted in this respect at the pos-

sibility of free-riding behavior, as participation in the

internal movement was not necessary to benefit from

it. Another downside of CCI professionalization

emerges in the area of external communication about

CCI practices. The most enthusiastic participants

perceived external communication about CCI activ-

ities as essential to their company pride. For those

explicitly targeted with the new framing, however,

such external orientation only feeds their skepticism

about CCI and the interest of top management in such

efforts. For these employees, such an explicit need for

external validation comes at the cost of community

impact and is therefore questionable.

Second, organizational members referred to the

de-motivating and de-mobilizing effects of what they

experienced as the obligation to participate (rather

than perceiving the desired participation as in-role

behavior). Most of these respondents questioned the

added value of obliging participation to increase issue

commitment. Rather than increasing commitment,

this group felt that such ‘‘quasi-volunteer work’’ could

actually undermine intrinsic motivation. In this

regard, a number of organizational members referred

to the emergence of a hidden countermovement.

Third, employees referred to what they perceived

as the negative consequences of top management

assuming an ambassador role with respect to CCI.

Their comments suggest that such elite co-optation

reduces rather than increases their issue commit-

ment. Although elite support is considered essential,

many organizational members question the credi-

bility of top management as CCI ambassadors,

thereby calling the overall credibility of CCI into

question as well. The use of top management as

ambassadors shifts the evaluation of CCI from the

context of CCI policy into the overall strategy of the

organization, which further strengthens skeptical

attitudes. In addition, as more people become frus-

trated with their organization, they become more

likely to dispute the elite leadership and call for the

prioritization of internal problems over external

ones. In general, our data on audience responses

indicate that reframing has made CCI more political

and contested rather than more legitimate over time.

Discussion

Our analysis indicates that the fundamental conflict

inherent in CCI suggested in the literature (Buchholtz

et al., 1999) cannot be resolved by assuming a strategic

stance towards CCI. The results suggest that tactics to

legitimate and expand the CCI movement may

actually trigger a legitimacy crisis rather than a solution.

Our analysis reveals real boundaries to such a strategic

management approach to CCI. These boundaries can

be traced back to several aspects of social movements.

For this reason, this case provides a good example of

how core activists tend to frame their issues broadly to

appeal to a larger audience (Gerhards, 1995), thereby

risking overextension.

Our explicit consideration of the core activists’

perspective allows us to demonstrate how the

ambition to claim leadership of the external CCI

movement and to achieve further growth in the

internal movement may create a sense of necessity

among core activists to assume a more strategic,

external-oriented, top-down approach to CCI.

Over time, these core activists, who use their

workplace for mobilization purposes, may move

away from their grassroots origins to appeal to an

audience for whom such a framing of CCI would

not suffice to motivate and sustain their active

involvement. Although the business context does

provide such an opportunity, this paper shows that

the efficacy of such a shift is limited in at least two

ways.

‘‘Managing’’ Corporate Community Involvement 321

At the practical level, our case study indicates that

framing CCI as a central business concern compli-

cates rather than facilitates the anticipated mutual

beneficial relationship between the internal and

external CCI movement. Core activists experience a

leadership paradox, due to the necessity of managing

an additional and potentially conflicting set of

objectives and criteria in selecting CCI practices and

mobilization tactics. While a specific focus in CCI

practices (e.g., a focus on underprivileged young

people) may facilitate external communication and

the ability to claim a leadership position with regard

to the broader CCI movement, the choice of this

focus might appeal only to a small portion of the

organization audience. Moreover, such a reframing

might also trigger ideological disputes over issue

ownership, if members of the organization’s audi-

ence believe that the core activists have gone too far

in ‘‘giving in’’ to business interests and the elite (top/

senior management).

While the CCI literature frames the ideological

debate inherent in CCI as a debate between moral and

agency-cost interpretations (both of which are, in fact,

representations of a corporate approach to CCI), our

research indicates that the actual ideological debate is

between two different perspectives on issue owner-

ship: an individual-oriented grassroots approach and a

company-oriented strategic management approach.

Our study shows that core activists may be confronted

with undesired double-edged audience effects with

regard to the internal movement. These audience

effects are more likely to occur when CCI is

approached in a corporate and top-down manner.

Double-edged effects are also more likely when core

activists essentially obligate participation in CCI by

appealing to the professional roles of organizational

members. Excessive movement in one direction of the

continuum (e.g., the strategic management approach)

might increase the salience of the other direction (e.g.,

the grassroots approach) in the perceptions of audience

members.

By depicting the mobilization challenge as an

exercise in reframing and by adding audience

responses to the analysis, we have provided a more

nuanced view of workplace activism. We conclude

that the mobilization of active support within a

business context is more complicated than what the

current literature on workplace activism suggests

(Scully and Segal, 2002). Complications can arise

from the excessive use of the business context for

mobilization purposes and the elite co-optation that

may result from it. Another source of complications

is formed by the unexpected audience effects that

may emerge when social issues are reframed into

business issues. Practices that are generally consid-

ered legitimate or standard business practice within a

business context may not be perceived as legitimate

within the context of CCI.

We propose that the complexity of managing CCI

and of leading the internal and external CCI move-

ment stems from the combined challenge of issues of

action and consensus mobilization and the influence

of the case-specific factors of the business context.

Although the commonality of the business context is

likely to tempt core activists to assume consensus

among their audience with respect to the desirability

of a strategic management approach to CCI, our

results suggest that the potential of such a frame to

mobilize action and sustained involvement in CCI

may be limited. While core activists may feel pres-

sured to change their issue framing according to their

ambitions and interpretations of the framing pro-

cesses, their audience may not respond as anticipated.

Our study thus underscores the added value of dis-

tinguishing between action and consensus mobiliza-

tion (Klandermans, 1988). As our research shows,

action mobilization does not necessarily lead to

consensus. On the contrary, an emphasis on action

mobilization may actually uncover and reinforce a

lack of consensus. Successful CCI management

should therefore pay attention to both action and

consensus. Unfortunately, the divergence of opin-

ions regarding the legitimate place and ownership of

CCI within the workplace context (as indicated by

the debates described in the previous section) may

make consensus much more difficult to attain than

expected.

Avenues for future research

In showing the added value of a social movement

approach to CCI, this paper underscores the need

for CCI practitioners and scholars alike to be

conscious of the social movement origins of CCI.

From this perspective, the management of CCI

requires maintaining a balance between a grassroots

approach and a strategic management approach, with

322 Judith M. van der Voort et al.

repercussions in the form of double-edged audience

effects if the core activists should go too far in either

direction.

The primary substance of CCI management

involves the management of audience perceptions

that will never be under the complete control of core

activists, not even in a business context. The diffi-

culty to control audience perceptions stems from

personal issue affiliations and differences in inter-

pretations of the organizational context and the

broader environment. The risk is always present that

core activists will aim at ambitions that are not shared

– or even recognized – by part or all of their audi-

ence. Another possibility is that core activists may

hold certain assumptions about their audience that do

not correspond to their actual attitudes and behav-

iors. We therefore believe that more research is

needed to explain and categorize audience responses.

Why would some people choose to be active in a

workplace movement although they are also very

critical of that movement while others may be very

positive but inactive? What distinguishes these

groups from each other?

The exploration of the above questions would be

particularly enhanced by the development of a survey

tool. While surveys loose some of the richness that

qualitative data can provide, they allow for a wider

sampling of organizational members. Larger sample

sizes and standardization of the collected data can

make additional quantitative analysis methods possi-

ble. For example, discriminant analysis can provide

insight into the key differences between active and

inactive groups. The increased anonymity for the

study participants is an additional benefit of survey

research. Since volunteering can be perceived as a

sensitive subject, employees might not be open in

discussing the reasons for their attitudes about vol-

unteering in face-to-face interviews. The anonymity

of the survey setting could also encourage employees

to be more candid about negative overall perceptions

of CCI.

Another important avenue for future research

involves the relationship between the type of social

issues embraced by CCI and the efficacy of tactics

used to stimulate employee involvement. Our

research has focused on a single company, and we

could examine only the interaction between a single

set of tactics and single set of social issues. Although

our theoretical framework suggests that social

movement organizing in a workplace context

presents inherent management challenges, those

challenges might be easier to overcome for some

issues or with the use of specific tactics. For example,

social movement organizing in favor of corporate

involvement in private issues (e.g., domestic partner

benefits; see Raeburn, 2004) might be more

challenging than organizing in favor of corporate

involvement in less private issues (e.g., environ-

mental sustainability).

One useful way to study the issue above would be

to replicate the present study in other contexts.

Replication would not only remedy the limited

generalizability of the case study conducted in this

research, but also provide an opportunity to compare

and contrast various approaches to managing CCI.

The instruments and measures developed for purposes

of studying audience responses could significantly

facilitate the collection of data in numerous sites. A

standardized measure for audience ‘‘resistance’’ could

be combined with more qualitative data to develop

hypotheses about the relationship between the type of

CCI issue and the efficacy of different movement

organizing tactics. Such hypotheses could then be

tested with experimental methods in either a labora-

tory or a corporate setting.

Notes

1 Professionalization implies the building of a formal

organizational infrastructure, introduction of hierarchy,

and clear delineation of areas of responsibility to ensure

organizational survival.2 This case study is part of a larger empirical research effort

that also includes a similar case study of what Yin (2003)

would call a ‘‘polar-type’’ case: a non-profit organization.

All data collection was conducted by the lead author.3 Cited quotes in this section originate from docu-

ments only.

Appendix

See Tables I, II, III and IV.

‘‘Managing’’ Corporate Community Involvement 323

TABLE I

Description of phases in the development of a CCI program

Phase Issue framing Views on

mobilization

Representative quotes

Thriving, bottom-up

enthusiasm

(1997–2000)

CCI as private

affair and individual

choice

Bottom-up

mobilization

Assumption: ‘‘The message will circulate auto-

matically when people see what we do and how

well we do it.’’

Goal: ‘‘The initiative to become involved and

apply for support should rest with employees.’’

The emergence

of a SMO

(2000–2001)

CCI as private

affair and

individual choice

Formalization

of (bottom-up)

mobilizing

structures

Assumption: ‘‘The establishment of the foun-

dation is the crowning glory of our work. What

was initiated as a bottom-up initiative four years

ago has now become officially embedded in the

organization. We have seven permanent

employees, a stable budget and a foundation

board.’’

Goal: ‘‘A new foundation, but with the same

people and the same idealistic objective: calling

employees to account for their community

involvement and to stimulate them to contribute

actively to the community.’’

Framing CCI

as a HR Tool

(2002–2003)

CCI as competency

development

Mobilization by

collaboration

and a pull strategy

to engage business

units

Assumption: [Foundation staff still have diffi-

culty with] ‘‘connecting to the business lines’’

[and struggle with a] ‘‘gap between the com-

mercial business and community investment; a

labor-intensive year program; and a perception

of the foundation as a central organizing club.’’

Goal: [the aim is to] ‘‘Engage in more structural

alliances and to mobilize existing networks more

consciously’’ [as] ‘‘stimulation for growth.’’

Toward a manage-

ment focus in mobi-

lization (2004–2006)

CCI as manage-

ment responsibility

Addition of

top-down approach

to mobilization

Assumption: ‘‘The foundation has been a

‘bottom-up organization’ for years. Originating

from an employee initiative, the employees have

always been the ones who thought about and

shaped the activities [.] Nonetheless, we realize

that a bottom-up process cannot subsist without

the commitment of top management.’’

Goal: ‘‘We aim to deepen and professionalize

our practices, but we also want to maintain a

broad basis.’’

Toward CCI as

standard business

practice

(from 2007)

CCI as strategic

instrument and

collective

responsibility

Balancing bottom-

up and top-down

mobilization

approaches

Assumption: ‘‘After playing the missionary role

for many years, we have finally arrived at a sit-

uation in which most managers – at least in

words – commit to our approach.’’

Goal: ‘‘As part of the normal operations we

would like to realize a participation rate of 45%

of [company name] – employees in 2011.

Obviously, on a voluntary basis.’’

324 Judith M. van der Voort et al.

TABLE II

Core activists’ perception of tensions experienced in managing CCI

Experienced tensions

in managing CCI

Illustrations of core activist views

Individual choice versus

Central programming

‘‘We believe that CCI should originate from the enthusiasm of the organizational members

themselves’’ [and that] ‘‘we therefore should follow organizational members in their volunteer

initiatives and preferences.’’

‘‘There is a tendency here to leave all options open with regard to our internal clients. [.]

Nonetheless, keeping it broad adds nothing.’’

Community benefits

versus Business benefits

‘‘CCI should not exist if it does not benefit the community,’’ [but it] ‘‘simultaneously [should]

produce value for the firm.’’

‘‘Speaking for myself, what I would like to contribute is to realize as great a business impact as

possible, because, in the end, you just want to be a healthy company.’’

Private/personal

motivation versus

Instrumental

motivation

‘‘Manual labor activities, doing chores, fun day outings, social teambuilding activities; people

do not necessarily see the added value of these activities, but they do see the fun of it.’’

‘‘People like to do something with us out of a desire to make a difference, and we want to

make sure that it has value as well. It is easier to bind people to an initiative if it offers benefits

for their jobs; if you can combine the two.’’

TABLE III

Audience responses to CCI management and the resulting ownership dilemmas

Ownership dilemmas Illustrations of audience views

Private roles versus

Professional roles

‘‘For me, there is the private and the business. Should I also do something for the company in my

private life? Okay, but I already do that quite often. An additional project would not suit me.

I have a young family; demanding sports; I am already active in the football association – there are

1001 reasons for not getting involved.’’

‘‘Do you want to change these employees in their private behaviors? That is what you do when

you ask them to become involved in the local community.’’

Private motivations

versus Professional

motivations

‘‘It is nice to be part of a company that wants to invest in community involvement, but I do it out

of my own self-interested viewpoint.’’

‘‘That would be really for myself, for my own consciousness.’’

‘‘I use this in conversations with my clients.’’

‘‘I do believe CCI is part of my responsibilities. As a manager, you have to consider this

important.’’

Local (bottom-up)

organization versus

Central (top-down)

organization

‘‘It is too big, too colossal, too much of an ‘in-class’ approach; I believe in a regional approach.’’

‘‘The smaller the better; the closer to the local community, the better.’’

‘‘There is a risk that, once you institutionalize it on a higher (central) level, you demote the well-

intended local initiatives.’’

‘‘My view of the current situation is that there is a list of activities for which you can enroll

yourself if you want to [.] It is not by us, with us, for us.’’

‘‘I could imagine that we would invest a larger share of our capacity in thinking about how to

mobilize that big X for the foundation, not for the sake of the foundation, but for profiling our

company.’’

‘‘Managing’’ Corporate Community Involvement 325

TABLE III

continued

Ownership dilemmas Illustrations of audience views

Local (bottom-up)

tactics versus Central

(top-down) tactics

‘‘You have to let it grow intrinsically from the bottom-up.’’

‘‘If the foundation does not have a huge attraction to organizational members and if it fails to

mobilize energy, is that due to all the people surrounding it?’’ and ‘‘in that case, should they take

all kinds of measures to realize it anyway?’’

‘‘You can not provide additional motivation by obliging people to participate [.] Of course they

will come and paint with us one time, but they will still not have it in them; that’s the crux.’’

‘‘This is how X would like to do business in the world, and participation is therefore not without

obligations.’’

‘‘What efficiency underlies such a collective CCI policy? None, and that’s why this is a sensitive

issue around here.’’

TABLE IV

Double-edged effects of CCI management

Double-edged effects Illustrations of audience views

Professionalization ‘‘It is not about emotions anymore; they are viewed more critically.’’

‘‘What do you need to account for anyways? That people had a day off? Much of it occurs in

private time anyway.’’

‘‘Our contribution could be larger. But larger often means more money and that we need to

embed CCI in our practices. That’s the downside as well. A certain casualness will creep into our

CCI activities and make CCI much more pragmatic.’’

‘‘I believe we are forcing ourselves on those nonprofit organizations just for the sake of showing

our involvement.’’

‘‘Then you are used in your private time as a source of free advertising.’’

Obliging

participation

‘‘I feel obliged, because that is how I am, but also because of my function, but I will think about it

long and hard before I consider participating the next time.’’

‘‘I do not want to be tested to see whether I am sufficiently CCI oriented, and that’s a broadly

shared but unexpressed sentiment among many management layers [.] Saying so would imme-

diately suggest that you do not want to be involved. But of course you want to, only the current

setting needs to change.’’

‘‘Nobody will say no, but they won’t say yes either.’’

‘‘The problem with obliging CCI involvement is that participation turns into an exercise in

checking off boxes, like it is with diversity. The number of participants is just not the issue.’’

Elite co-optation

and support

‘‘One of the foundation’s smartest moves has always been that they pretend to be separate from

our business. Any effort to use the foundation as a strategic instrument will be fatal, as you will

lose that unique sincere element driving it.’’

‘‘It is fine to do good. As a board of directors, however, if you continue to flatten your orga-

nization, I could not care less about your whereabouts within the foundation.’’

‘‘They need a patron, but if this patronage is commercially motivated rather than sincere […] It

will become a vehicle and lose its credibility.’’

‘‘If you require a ‘7 days a week, 24 h a day’ commitment from your managers, you can’t talk

with tears in your eyes about how important sustainability and CCI are to the organization.’’

326 Judith M. van der Voort et al.

References

American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel: 2008,

Giving USA (AAFRC, New York, NY).

Andersson, L. M. and T. S. Bateman: 2000, ‘Individual

Environmental Initiative: Championing Natural Envi-

ronmental Issues in U.S. Business Organizations’, Acad-

emy of Management Journal 43(4), 548–570. doi:10.2307/

1556355.

Barnett, M. L.: 2007, ‘Stakeholder Influence Capacity and

the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate Social

Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 32(3),

794–816.

Bartel, C. A.: 2001, ‘Social Comparisons in Boundary-

Spanning Work: Effects of Community Outreach on

Members’ Organizational Identity and Identification’,

Administrative Science Quarterly 46(3), 379–413. doi:10.

2307/3094869.

Benford, R. D. and S. A. Hunt: 1992, ‘Dramaturgy and

Social Movements: The Social Construction and

Communication of Power’, Sociological Inquiry 62(1),

36–55. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1992.tb00182.x.

Benford, R. D. and D. A. Snow: 2000, ‘Framing Pro-

cesses and Social Movements: An Overview and

Assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology 26, 611–639.

doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.

Bowen, F.: 2007, ‘Corporate Social Strategy: Competing

Views fromTwo Theories of theFirm’, Journal of Business

Ethics 75(1), 97–113. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9240-0.

Brammer, S. and A. Millington: 2003, ‘The Effect of

Stakeholder Preferences, Organizational Structure, and

Industry Type on Corporate Community Involve-

ment’, Journal of Business Ethics 45(3), 213–226.

doi:10.1023/A:1024151528646.

Brammer, S. and A. Millington: 2004, ‘Stakeholder

Pressure, Organizational Size, and the Allocation of

Departmental Responsibility for the Management of

Corporate Charitable Giving’, Business & Society 43(3),

268–294. doi:10.1177/0007650304267536.

Buchholtz,A.K.,A.C.Amason andM.A.Rutherford: 1999,

‘Beyond Resources: The Mediating Effect of Top Man-

agement Discretion and Values on Corporate Philan-

thropy’, Business & Society 38(2), 167–187. doi:10.1177/

000765039903800203.

Burke, L., J. M. Logsdon, W. Mitchell, M. Reiner and D.

Vogel: 1986, ‘Corporate Community Involvement in

the San Francisco Bay Area’, California Management

Review 28(3), 122–141.

Campbell, J. L.: 2005, ‘Where Do We Stand? Common

Mechanisms in Organizations and Social Movements

Research’, in G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, R. W. Scott and

M. N. Zald (eds.), Social Movements and Organization

Theory (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY),

pp. 41–68.

Campbell, J. L.: 2007, ‘Why Would Corporations Behave

in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory

of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Man-

agement Review 32(3), 946–967.

Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual

Model of Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of

Management Review 4(4), 497–505. doi:10.2307/257850.

Carroll, A. B.: 1999, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility:

Evolution of a Definitional Construct’, Business & Society

38(3), 268–295. doi:10.1177/000765039903800303.

Carroll, A. B.: 2006, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A

Historical Perspective’, in M. J. Epstein and K. O. Hanson

(eds.), The Accountable Corporation, Vol. 3 (Praeger, West-

port, CT), pp. 3–30.

Choi, J. and H. Wang: 2007, ‘The Promise of a Mana-

gerial Values Approach to Corporate Philanthropy’,

Journal of Business Ethics 75(3), 345–359. doi:10.1007/

s10551-006-9257-4.

Clemens, E. S. and D. C. Minkoff: 2004, ‘Beyond the Iron

Law: Rethinking the Place of Organizations in Social

Movement Research’, in D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule and H.

Kriesi (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements

(Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA)), pp. 155–170.

Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy: 2008.

‘Giving in Numbers’, http://www.corporatephilanthropy.

org/research/pubs/GivinginNumbers2008.pdf. Accessed

January 2009.

Creed, W. E. D., M. A. Scully and J. R. Austin: 2002,

‘Clothes Make the Person? The Tailoring of Legiti-

mating Accounts and the Social Construction of Iden-

tity’, Organization Science 13(5), 475–496. doi:10.1287/

orsc.13.5.475.7814.

Davis, G. F. and D. McAdam: 2000, ‘Corporations, Classes,

and Social Movements after Managerialism’, Research in

Organizational Behavior 22, 193–236. doi:10.1016/S01

91-3085(00)22006-6.

Den Hond, F. and F. G. A. De Bakker: 2007, ‘Ideolog-

ically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups

Influence Corporate Social Change Activities’, Acad-

emy of Management Review 32(3), 901–924.

Dutton, J. E. and S. J. Ashford: 1993, ‘Selling Issues to

Top Management’, Academy of Management Review

18(3), 397–428. doi:10.2307/258903.

Ellen, P. S., D. J. Webb and L. A. Mohr: 2006, ‘Building

Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for

Corporate Socially Responsible Programs’, Academy of

Marketing Science 34(2), 147–157. doi:10.1177/0092070

305284976.

Flick, U.: 2002, An Introduction to Qualitative Research

(Sage, London).

‘‘Managing’’ Corporate Community Involvement 327

Gamson, W. A.: 2004, ‘Bystanders, Public Opinion, and

the Media’, in D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule and H. Kriesi

(eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements

(Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA), pp. 242–261.

Gerhards, J.: 1995, ‘Framing Dimensions and Framing

Strategies: Contrasting Ideal-Type and Real-Type

Frames’, Social Sciences Information (Information Sur les

Sciences Sociales) 34(2), 225–248. doi:10.1177/053901

895034002003.

Godfrey, P. C. and N. W. Hatch: 2007, ‘Researching

Corporate Social Responsibility: An Agenda for the

21st Century’, Journal of Business Ethics 70(1), 87–98.

doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9080-y.

Griffin, J. and J. F. Mahon: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social

Performance and Corporate Financial Performance

Debate: Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research’,

Business & Society 36(1), 5–31. doi:10.1177/00076503

9703600102.

Hemphill, T. A.: 1999, ‘Corporate Governance, Strategic

Philanthropy, and Public Policy’, Business Horizons

32(13), 57–62. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(99)80022-6.

Hess, D., N. Rogovsky and T. W. Dunfee: 2002, ‘The

Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement:

Corporate Social Initiatives’, California Management

Review 44(2), 110–125.

Howard-Grenville, J. A. and A. J. Hoffman: 2003, ‘The

Importance of Cultural Framing to the Success of

Social Initiatives in Business’, Academy of Management

Executive 17(2), 70–84.

Husted, B. W. and D. B. Allen: 2000, ‘Is It Ethical to Use

Ethics as Strategy?’, Journal of Business Ethics 27(1/2),

21–31. doi:10.1023/A:1006422704548.

Keim, G. D.: 1978, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: An

Assessment of the Enlightened Self-Interest Model’,

Academy of Management Review 3(1), 32–40.

doi:10.2307/257574.

Klandermans, B.: 1988, ‘The Formation and Mobilization

of Consensus’, in B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi.

S. Tarrow (eds.), From Structure to Action: Comparing

Social Movement Research Across Cultures, Vol. 1 (JAI

Press Inc., Greenwich, CT), pp. 173–196.

Klandermans, B.: 1997, The Social Psychology of Protest

(Blackwell Publishers Inc., Cambridge, MA).

Locke, K.: 2001, Grounded Theory in Management Research

(Sage, London).

Margolis, J. D. and J. P. Walsh: 2003, ‘Misery Loves Com-

panies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’,

Administrative ScienceQuarterly48, 268–305. doi:10.2307/

3556659.

Markowitz, L. and K. W. Tice: 2002, ‘Paradoxes of

Professionalization: Parallel Dilemmas in Women’s

Organizations in the Americas’, Gender & Society 16(6),

941–958. doi:10.1177/089124302237896.

McAdam, D.: 1988, ‘Micromobilization Contexts and

Recruitment to Activism’, in B. Klandermans.

H. Kriesi and S. Tarrow (eds.), From Structure to

Action: Comparing Social Movement Research Across

Cultures, Vol. 1 (JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT),

pp. 125–154.

McAdam, D., J. D. McCarthy and M. N. Zald: 1996,

‘Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and

Framing Processes’, in D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy and

M. N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social

Movements (Cambridge University Press, New York,

NY), pp. 1–20.

McAdam, D. and R. W. Scott: 2005, ‘Organizations and

Movements’, in G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, R. W. Scott

and M. N. Zald (eds.), Social Movements and Organization

Theory (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY),

pp. 4–40.

McCarthy, J. D.: 1996, ‘Constraints and Opportunities in

Adopting, Adapting, and Inventing’, in D. McAdam,

J. D. McCarthy and M. N. Zald (eds.), Comparative

Perspectives on Social Movements (Cambridge University

Press, New York, NY), pp. 141–151.

McCarthy, J. D. and M. N. Zald: 1977, ‘Resource

Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory’,

American Journal of Sociology 82(6), 1212–1241.

doi:10.1086/226464.

McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2001, ‘Corporate Social

Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective’, Acad-

emy of Management Review 26(1), 117–127. doi:10.2307/

259398.

Miles, M.S., & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data

Analysis, 2nd Edition (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).

Palazzo, G. and U. Richter: 2005, ‘CSR as Business as

Usual? The Case of the Tobacco Industry’, Journal of

Business Ethics 61(4), 387–401. doi:10.1007/s10551-

005-7444-3.

Peloza, J. and D. N. Hassay: 2006, ‘Intra-Organizational

Volunteerism: Good Soldiers, Good Deeds and Good

Politics’, Journal of Business Ethics 64, 357–379.

doi:10.1007/s10551-005-5496-z.

Peterson, D. K.: 2004, ‘The Relationship Between

Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organiza-

tional Commitment’, Business & Society 43(3), 296–

319. doi:10.1177/0007650304268065.

Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2002, ‘The Competi-

tive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard

Business Review 80(12), 56–68.

Raeburn, N. C.: 2004, Changing Corporate America from

Inside out: Lesbian and Gay Workplace Rights (University

of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).

Rao, H., C. Morrill and M. N. Zald: 2000, ‘Power Plays:

How Social Movements and Collective Action Create

New Organizational Forms’, Research in Organizational

328 Judith M. van der Voort et al.

Behavior 22, 237–281. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(00)

22007-8.

Rowley, T. and S. Berman: 2000, ‘A Brand New Brand

of Corporate Social Performance’, Business & Society

39(3), 397–418. doi:10.1177/000765030003900404.

Rynes, S. and R. P. Gephart Jr.: 2004, ‘From the Editors:

Qualitative Research and the Academy of Manage-

ment Journal’, Academy of Management Journal 47(4),

454–462.

Saiia, D. H., A. B. Carroll and A. K. Buchholtz: 2003,

‘Philanthropy as Strategy: When Corporate Charity

‘‘Begins at Home’’’, Business & Society 42(2), 169–201.

doi:10.1177/0007650303042002002.

Schwartz, M. and S. Paul: 1992, ‘Resource Mobilization

Versus the Mobilization of People: Why Consensus

Movements Cannot be Instruments of Social Change’,

in A. D. Morris and C. McClurg-Mueller (eds.),

Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (Yale University

Press, New Haven, CT), pp. 205–223.

Scully, M. and A. Segal: 2002, ‘Passion with an Umbrella:

Grassroots Activists in the Workplace’, in M. Lounsbury

and M. J. Ventresca (eds.), Research in the Sociology of

Organizations, Vol. 19 (JAI Press, Oxford), pp. 125–168.

Seifert, B., S. A. Morris and B. R. Bartkus: 2003,

‘Comparing Big givers and Small Givers: Financial

Correlates of Corporate Philanthropy’, Journal of

Business Ethics 45(3), 195–211. doi:10.1023/A:102419

9411807.

Sen, S. and C. B. Bhattacharaya: 2001, ‘Does Doing Good

Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to

Corporate Social Responsibility’, JMR, Journal of Mar-

keting Research 38(2), 225. doi:. doi:10.1509/jmkr.

38.2.225.18838.

Snow, D. A., E. Burke-Rochford Jr., S. K. Worden and

R. D. Benford: 1986, ‘Frame Alignment Processes,

Micromobilization, and Movement Participation’,

American Sociological Review 51(4), 464–481. doi:10.

2307/2095581.

Spicer, A. and S. Bohm: 2007, ‘Moving Management:

Theorizing Struggles Against the Hegemony of Man-

agement’, Organization Studies 28(11), 1667–1698.

doi:10.1177/0170840606082219.

Strang, D. and D.-I. Jung: 2005, ‘Organizational Change as an

Orchestrated Social Movement: Recruitment to a

Corporate Quality Initiative’, in G. F. Davis, D. McAdam,

R. W. Scott and M. N. Zald (eds.), Social Movements and

Organization Theory (Cambridge University Press, New

York, NY), pp. 280–309.

Tarrow, S.: 1998, Power in Movement: Social Movements and

Contentious Politics, 2nd Edition (Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge).

Tschirhart, M.: 2005, ‘Employee Volunteer Programs’, in

J. L. Brudney (ed.), Emerging Areas of Volunteering, Vol.

1 (ARNOVA, Indianapolis, IN), pp. 13–30.

Tschirhart, M. and S. L. Clair: 2008, ‘Fine Lines: Design

and Implementation Challenges in Employee Volun-

teer Programs’, in M. Liao-Troth (ed.), Challenges in

Volunteer Management (Information Age Publishing,

Greenwich, CT), pp. 205–225.

Weick, K. E.: 1995, Sensemaking in Organizations (Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA).

Yin, R. K.: 2003, Case Study Research: Design and Methods

(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).

Zald, M. N.: 1996, ‘Culture, Ideology, and Strategic

Framing’, in D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N.

Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements

(Cambridge University Press, New York, NY), pp. 261–

274.

Zald, M. N. and M. A. Berger: 1978, ‘Social Movements

in Organizations: Coup d’etat, Insurgency, and Mass

Movements’, American Journal of Sociology 83(4), 823–

861. doi:10.1086/226634.

Judith M. van der Voort

and Lucas C.P.M. Meijs

Department of Business-Society Management,

Rotterdam School of Management,

Erasmus University,

P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam,

The Netherlands

E-mail: jvoort@rsm.nl;

lmeys@rsm.nl

Katherina Glac

1000 LaSalle Avenue,

Minneapolis, MN 55403, U.S.A.

E-mail: kglac@stthomas.edu

‘‘Managing’’ Corporate Community Involvement 329