corporate social accountability through action: contemporary insights from british industrial...

Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accounting, Organizations and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/aos

Corporate social accountability through action: Contemporaryinsights from British industrial pioneers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.10.0010361-3682/� 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

⇑ Address: School of Accounting, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476,Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Please cite this article in press as: Parker, L. D. Corporate social accountability through action: Contemporary insights fromindustrial pioneers. Accounting, Organizations and Society (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.10.001

Lee D. Parker ⇑School of Accounting, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, AustraliaRoyal Holloway College, University of London, United Kingdom

a b s t r a c t

Corporate social and environmental responsibility has become a major contemporary focusof business, government and community attention globally. With this increased attentionand activity have come debates ranging across corporate authenticity, legislative necessity,and the scope of appropriate strategies. Through an historical analysis of four leadingBritish industrialists of the 19th and early 20th centuries, this paper addresses the questionof how corporate social accountability can be shaped and implemented by industrial lead-ers. It finds that while they may be motivated by a mix of business case agendas and theirpersonal philosophical and religious beliefs, their accountability orientation reflects thelatter. Social accountability in these cases, emerges as accountability rendered throughaction, reflecting organisational leaders’ moral responsibility and their connecting theirpersonal beliefs with action for the common good. In the light of parallels between histor-ical and contemporary global industrial environments, the study identifies resonancesbetween historical and contemporary corporate leader social responsibility values, initia-tives and accountabilities through action. This opens up the possibility of a more nuancedunderstanding of motivations for and manifestations of corporate social responsibility andaccountability.

� 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been an issueof increasing attention and importance in the accountingand management literatures since the early 1970s. As isoften the case with such developments, advocates and crit-ics alike have debated the rationales underpinning keystakeholders’ attitudes and degrees of engagement. Muchhas been made of the ‘business case’ for adopting andreporting CSR strategies, with corporate critics pointingto the ‘capture’ of the social and environmental responsi-bility agenda by the corporate sector. This study isprompted by the underlying question of whether there

are earlier historical precedents for CSR and relatedaccountability practices and the underlying drivers. Thispaper therefore investigates four historical cases of CSRpractice by British industrial company leaders of the 19thcentury. The overall aim is to explicate their primaryunderlying CSR practice rationales and the forms of CSRand accountability practices they pursued.

The study employs an historical analysis of publishedbusiness and management history research into early Brit-ish industrial experiments in building ‘model’ factories andvillages along with their associated employee and commu-nity welfare development strategies. Four particularindividuals have been selected as cases of high profileindustrialists of their day who became renowned for theirindustrial CSR and philanthropic initiatives andexperiments. These were Robert Owen, Titus Salt, GeorgeCadbury and William Hesketh Lever. Their profiles,

British

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.10.001

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03613682

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos


2 L.D. Parker / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

corporate histories, and CSR strategies are analysed againstthe background historical context of the industrial andsocial conditions of their day with a view to eliciting boththe CSR dimensions of their factory and village innovationsand unpacking both their business motivations and deeperpersonal and social philosophies.

These four industrial CSR leaders have been selected forstudy from among a coterie of past British leaders includ-ing Jeremiah Colman, Jesse Boot, Joseph and BenjaminSeebhom Rowntree and Hans Renold. Owen, Salt, Cadburyand Lever are the focus of this paper due to their respectivehigh public profiles and significant levels of CSR activities,their work that collectively spans a period from the late18th to early 20th centuries, their public advocacy of manyof the values and innovations they promoted, the contin-uing physical existence of their industrial and related vil-lage sites, and the considerable volume of business andindustrial history publications concerning their lives andwork.

At this point it is important to recognise that CSR wasnot a concept or term employed in the historical lifetimesof these four industrialists. Nonetheless their social pro-grammes, covering both employees and surrounding com-munities, anticipated philosophies and strategies labelledas CSR today. Owen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever are specifi-cally recognised as forerunners of contemporary CSR bycontemporary research studies such as Smith (2003),Idowu (2011) and Caulfield (2013). This study adoptsFleischman and Tyson’s (1997) justification for employingcontemporary language and concepts to represent histori-cal beliefs and practices, thereby enhancing our under-standing of the past through presentist eyes. Despitedebate over this amongst some accounting historians,Parker (2004) argues for a historiographic intersectionand overlap between concepts of past and present thatcan illuminate subjects of historical and contemporaryoccurrence. Thus the terminology of CSR is applied to thehistorical account presented in this study.

The analysis offered in this study is informed by theori-sations of accountability that address the role of organisa-tional actors who challenge institutional norms in seekingto exercise a responsibility for the common good. It followsSinclair’s (1995) call to pay attention to corporate leaders’internalisation and exercising of moral responsibility andaccountability. This requires attention to their personalidentity, sense of moral responsibility, and their mode ofrendering an account, not only through discourse butthrough action (Cho, Guidry, Hageman, & Patten, 2012;Messner, 2009; Sinclair, 1995). As Archel et al. (2011)argue, actors do not exist in a vacuum, but are oftendefined by their institutional environment rather than bybroader social movements, and may move to challengetheir institutional environment’s conventional wisdom.Of course Malsch (2013) warns of the risk that despite bestintentions towards communal interests, such actors canfall prey to market self-interest. Nonetheless, asSchweiker (1993) has argued, an actor’s rendering anaccount has moral dimensions including moral claimsand emerging moral identities that arise through that pro-cess of discourse that in turn shapes attitudes and actionstowards the common good. Thus accountability can be

Please cite this article in press as: Parker, L. D. Corporate social accindustrial pioneers. Accounting, Organizations and Society (2014), http:

conceived as a morally sourced responsibility for buildingrelationships with others: with community (Messner,2009; Shearer, 2002). So organisational leaders can be con-ceived as moral agents answerable to ‘canons of socialresponsibility’ (Schweiker, 1993, p. 236), responsible forothers and for each other (Roberts, 2009). Their identityemerges in the process of giving an account of themselvesand their actions (Schweiker, 1993).

This study conceives the exercise of social responsibilityand accountability as not confined to formal reports or dis-courses, but to the observable actions of corporate actors;in this case four leading historical industrial pioneers andphilanthropists. Given the overall aim of the study as out-lined above, and the accountability focus just articulated,the following central question is addressed. How was cor-porate social accountability shaped and enacted by pio-neering industrial philanthropists? It further exploreshow the practice and potential for corporate leader’s ren-dering of social accountability may be enacted in the con-temporary corporate environment.

The paper begins with a discussion of the definition ofcontemporary CSR and philanthropy and their relationshipsuch strategies and practices historically. It then presents atheoretical framing of the study from the perspective ofaccountability rendered through action, augmented byChristian concepts of moral responsibility and accountabil-ity that informed the pioneering industrialists’ beliefs. Thisis followed by a summary of the contemporary ‘businesscase’ motivation for CSR involvement and a discussion ofcontemporary literature on ethical values motivations forCSR. Subsequently the profile of each industrialist, hisorganisation and their surrounding industrial environ-ment, are portrayed. The four historical case study organi-sations are then examined through their socialresponsibility strategies, their model factories and villages,their leaders’ social responsibility visions, the industrialistswho emulated them and their approaches to education andphilanthropy. Evidence for any business case or scientificmanagement motivations is reviewed, and then the deeperlevel beliefs and philosophies of these four pioneering phi-lanthropists are investigated. This leads on to a discussionof parallels between their historical environment and thecontemporary business environment and on this basis can-vasses potential implications for corporate social account-ability today.

Business leader social responsibility: Yesterday andtoday

This study draws upon Schwartz and Carroll’s (2003)CSR model: a development from Caroll’s (1991, 1999)CSR pyramid and definitional construct, conceptualisingCSR as three intersecting sets of economic, legal and ethicalresponsibilities. This study also embraces Geva’s (2008)conceptual model of CSR that extrapolates from Schwartzand Carroll’s (2003) conceptualisation. Geva defines eco-nomic responsibility in terms of pursing the good of soci-ety rather than purely the economic good of theorganisation itself. Further, Geva defines non-economicresponsibilities as permeating and embracing the

ountability through action: Contemporary insights from British//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.10.001


L.D. Parker / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

economic responsibility. Both Schwartz and Carroll’s(2003) and Geva’s (2008) models embrace philanthropywithin their conceptualisations of CSR. Schwartz andCarroll’s (2003) model subsumes the philanthropic cate-gory under ethical and/or economic responsibilities, argu-ing that it is ethically driven because it is expected bysociety or is pursued as part of economic responsibility.Geva’s (2008) CSR model treats philanthropy as an integralpart of CSR and defines it not simply as corporate contribu-tions to other entities but as the employment of corporatecompetencies to solve significant social problems. Thisincorporation of philanthropy within the concept of CSRhas also been reflected in the definitional positions takenby other researchers such as Wan-Jan (2006) and Mattenand Moon (2008).

Based on the above CSR conceptualisations, this studyfocusses upon the beliefs and CSR practices of four histor-ical industrial leaders and their reflection in the actions ofcontemporary business leaders of their day and those whofollowed, including business organisation leaders fromlarge corporate to small enterprise. Their circumstancesvary from being owner–managers to CEOs of stockholderowned corporations. In the case of this study’s four indus-trial CSR pioneers, Owen was a co-owner of his mill withother financial partners, but Salt, Cadbury and Lever weredominant owners and CEOs of their companies. Their per-sonal and corporate CSR strategies and actions fall withinthe conceptual modelling definitions of CSR by bothSchwartz and Carroll (2003) and Geva (2008). Those strat-egies and actions went well beyond charitable donations toother entities, and also embraced the full spectrum oforganisational, employee welfare and community develop-ment programs. For each one of them, their CSR philoso-phy, commitment, and strategy will be shown in thispaper to involve strong social accountability drivers. Evenwhere it might be argued they had unrestricted freedomto do and spend as they chose, they saw themselves asaccountable to their God and faith community, to theirfamily, to the loyalty of their employees and to their widercommunity. In circumstances where CEOs have stockhold-ers to satisfy, this paper will outline examples of contem-porary corporations where CEOs have embedded CSRconcepts into their organisational missions, objectivesand programs of action.

It must also be recognised, as Campbell (2007) pointsout, that activities considered to meet a definition of CSR,change historically over time. During the industrial revolu-tion, factory labour hours reductions may have qualified asCSR innovations, but not in terms of standard factorylabour hours in developed countries today. Dahlsrud

Table 1CSR definitions (Dahlsrud, 2006).

CSR as a guiding principle for every decision made and in every area of businCSR as open and transparent business practices based on ethical values and rCSR as achieving commercial success in ways that honour ethical values andCSR as the continuing commitment by business to contribute to economic dev

families as well as of the local community and society at largeCSR as treating the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a responsible manCSR as extending the immediate interest from oneself to include one’s fellowCSR as how you treat your employees and all your stakeholders and the envi


(2006) analysed 37 definitions of CSR, sourced from theresearch literature, the Commission of the European Com-munities, World Business Council for Sustainable Develop-ment, International Business Leaders Forum, Ethics inAction Awards, and the UK Government response to theEuropean Commission green paper on CSR. His contentanalysis finds the definitions largely congruent. Elementsof these relate to the CSR roles observed in industrial lead-ers portrayed in this paper. Such elements are listed inTable 1. These CSR definitions all embrace and allow for aCSR philosophy and program directly inspired and led byboth large and small enterprise owner managers. Basedon the above conceptual foundations, this study examinesthe philosophies and actions of these four British Industrialpioneers and elicits implications for CSR motivations andpractices today. This is pursued through a theoretical fram-ing of accountability that will now be outlined.

Framing accountability

This study is framed within a theoretical accountabilitydiscourse that has emerged in the accounting literature,and particularly in the pages of this journal, since the early1990s. Relevant to this study’s focus is a concern to exam-ine key organisational actors who develop and transmittheir conceptions of morality and responsibility, reflectingand transforming their institutional context with a view tocontributing to the common good (Sinclair, 1995). This ori-entation recognises that their institutional environmentmay reveal much about their predispositions and helpexplain their approaches to challenging conventional wis-dom (Archel et al., 2011). Thus while much of the account-ability and social responsibility literatures have focussedupon the rights of stakeholders and forms of disclosure,there is also a need to examine organisational leadersand their identities, their sense of responsibility and modesof rendering an account of their actions, be that discourseand or observable actions themselves (Cho et al., 2012;Messner, 2009; Sinclair, 1995). Their rendering account-ability intrinsically involves their own morality and moralclaims and draws them into building their relationshipswith the community around them (Messner, 2009;Schweiker, 1993; Shearer, 2002).

An individual perspective

Roberts (1991) has theorised the notion of individua-lised accountability whereby the accountor attempts tostand outside themselves in order to understand how they

essespect for employees, communities and the environmentrespect people, communities and the natural environment

elopment while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their

nercitizens and the society one is living in

ronment




may be seen and to try to anticipate the expectations ofothers. As Messner (2009) explains however, accountabil-ity goes beyond self-justification of actions by an accoun-tor, to embrace a constitutive relationship with othersthat exceeds any formal contract. Again, this suggestsopportunities for our recognising and reflecting upon busi-ness leader personal orientations and actions. At the sametime, Shearer (2002) and Messner (2009) have argued forthe broadening of corporate accountability content beyondthe purely economic and financial, to embrace the social,based on the accountor’s focus upon the other rather thanupon themselves. This admits the responsibility for beingin relationship with and accountable to the community:a community centred approach (Brown & Fraser, 2006;Jayasinghe et al., 2009; Shearer, 2002; Shenkin &Coulson, 2007). As Sinclair’s (1995) study of CEOs found,accountability related to the person occupying a positionof leadership responsibility. She therefore argued that weshould be concerned with how leaders internalise andexperience their sense of responsibility and accountability.Hence business leaders’ personal accountability includesconformity with personal conscience and a respect for oth-ers and their human dignity. This she argues may be rein-forced by an organisational culture in which suchresponsibility and accountability becomes a ‘way of being’(Sinclair, 1995, p. 231). Such arguments amply justify thisstudy’s examination of these historical industrialists’ CSRleadership and salient motives. To this end, the study paysparticular attention to the sense of moral and socialresponsibility that they each exhibited.

Moral and social responsibility

A number of researchers have also recognised theimportance and potential role of moral responsibility thatmay be felt by the accountor. The belief that business hasmoral responsibilities, even if subject to definitionaldebate, can prompt an acceptance amongst some businessleaders that they have a moral responsibility to beaccountable to their local and wider community(Frederick, 1994; Unerman & O’Dwyer, 2007). As Shearer(2002) argues, such a moral responsibility impelled senseof accountability expands the ethical person’s understand-ing of what constitutes accountability, embracing a scopethat goes beyond the constrained economic focus(Andrew, 2007). Gallhofer and Haslam (1993) draw onthe English philosopher Jeremy Bentham to suggest thegovernance of a corporate body on the basis of moral prin-ciples that extend to employee remuneration and workingconditions, equal opportunity, consumer protection andthe protection of the ecological environment. As Messner(2009, p. 919) puts it, in this respect the rendering ofaccountability ‘‘contributes significantly to our self-under-standing as morally responsible subjects’’. Roberts (2009)sees this morally sourced accountability as an ethic ofencounter between accountor and accountees where theaccountor feels and tries to implement their perceivedresponsibility towards the other. Amongst other implica-tions of this, he points to the potential for a moral sensibil-ity that is open to the assignation of responsibility(Roberts, 2003) and ‘‘a more compassionate form of


accountability which expresses and enacts our responsibil-ity for others, and for each other, rather than just formyself’’ (Roberts, 2009, p. 967). Such a moral accountabil-ity perspective offers a useful lens through which to reflectupon the CSR and related social accountability strategiesemployed by the industrialists in this study. While theirbusiness case motivations are also subject to scrutiny,the moral accountability dimension permits an equivalentconsideration of their religious and philosophicalmotivations.

Shearer’s (2002) envisaging corporate accountabilitygoing beyond the financial and economic focus has alsobeen echoed by Sinclair (1995) and Messner’s (2009) advo-cacy of public accountability through the accountor’s pub-lic accountability to groups outside the organisation. Thisprinciple of public accountability was central to Bentham’s(Gallhofer & Haslam, 1993) concern to render an accountin the public domain so as to exceed accountability solelyto owners and extend to discharging the accountor’s dutyto humanity. Such a public accountability focus serves asocial accountability agenda of broadening corporateaccountability beyond the financial concerns of stockhold-ers. It also arguably facilitates the pursuit of socialacknowledgement of the effects of the accountors’ actionsand their potential for their effecting social change (Brown& Fraser, 2006; Roberts, 1991; Shenkin & Coulson, 2007).Sinclair (1995) points to the changing conceptions ofaccountability ranging across financial, political, constitu-tional and ethical, being continually shaped and reshapedby changing social aspirations and norms. This aligns withCampbell’s (2007) argument for historically changing con-ceptions of CSR over time and equally applies to broaden-ing concepts and manifestations of corporate socialaccountability. Relevant to the industrialists examined inthis study, is a further dimension of accountability; namelyaccountability through action.

Accountability through action

The notion of action as a key element of renderingaccountability has been taken up by Oakes and Young(2008) whose historical study of a Chicago non-profit orga-nisation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries revealeda more personal encounter form of accountability thantoday’s dominant focus on formal, bureaucratised, moredistant relationship forms. Accountability in their researchbecame executed through personal reciprocity betweenaccountor and accountees in which friendship, love andcare were expressed through specific and contextualisedmoral action. Drawing on Benhabib’s (1987) work,accountability is presented as executable through address-ing both individual and generalised needs of groups of peo-ple ranging from immigrants, to sweatshop workers to thepoor (Oakes & Young, 2008). Thus through these argu-ments for public, personal and action based accountability,we are presented with an alternative approach to recognis-ing and pursuing the discharge of CSR and accountabilitythat goes beyond traditional formal reports, insteadembracing public actions that discharge CSR and exhibitcorporate social accountability. Such an approach will also




be revealed in the four industrialist cases examined in thisstudy.

As Sinclair (1995) puts it, accountability not onlyencompasses holding accountors to account but requiresaccountors to develop ways of rendering an account. Gray(2002) rightly accuses social accountants of being focussedupon the formal rather than informal rendering ofaccounts. They therefore risk ignoring a wider set of possi-ble means of implementing corporate social accountability.In this respect, as Messner (2009) emphasises, the ethics ofaccountability must be concerned not only with what isrendered accountable but with how accountability is ren-dered. Observable actions may offer a hitherto ignoredmeans of rendering accountability since as accountors weare all limited in our ability to wholly know ourselvesand in our ability to narrate a complete story (Butler,2001; Messner, 2009). Rendering accountability throughactions might be seen as a normal part of day to day con-duct (Giddens, 1979; Roberts & Scapens, 1985) as accoun-tors take responsibility for themselves and express itthrough organisational mission and individual action(Ebrahim, 2005; Fry, 1995). Such accountability actionsmay be conditioned by the accountor’s personal conscienceand moral sensibility, and indeed by their personal philos-ophies and religious beliefs, as for instance found byJayasinghe et al. (2009).

In exploring alternative pathways to business leaderrenditions of corporate social accountability, surveillanceof their publicly observable social actions may offer hith-erto unappreciated insights into their societal accountabil-ity relationships. This opportunity is presented in thisstudy’s examination of its industrial pioneers’ practices.Of course a focus on such action-based social accountabil-ity rendering by business leaders nonetheless has itslimitations, for example given their ability to exercise theirdominant hierarchical and economic power to render aself-serving and self-interested account (Ebrahim, 2005;Shearer, 2002). Their corporate social accountability mayalso be limited by its predisposition to satisfy the require-ments of select dominant stakeholders (Oakes & Young,2008), by their view of their accountability being mediatedby the social norms of their era and industry (Messner,2009), or by a desire to offset what they know to be poorsocial performance on their part (Cho et al., 2012). This lat-ter point has been evidenced in a study of contemporarycorporate environmental disclosures conducted by Choet al. (2012) where the title of their paper ‘‘Do actionsspeak louder than words?’’ again suggests the possibilityof rendering more revealing corporate social accountabilitythrough observation of publicly observable corporateactions. In examining the published evidence regardingOwen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever’s model factory and villageand employee/community education and welfare pro-grams, this study engages with these concepts of personalmoral social accountability in action. Understanding theexercising of social accountability through action by theseindustrial philanthropists also involves consideration oftheir action-inducing beliefs. Beliefs and actions may beintrinsically interrelated and so it is to the core beliefs ofthese industrial philanthropists that our attention nowturns.


Action, faith and good works

Each of these philanthropist’s action-based expressionsof accountability was arguably motivated by a strong senseof religious belief and commitment. While Owen began as aMethodist but later became a spiritualist, Cadbury was alifetime Quaker, and Salt and Lever were lifetime Congrega-tionalists. Their underlying Christian philosophies concern-ing faith, actions and accountability offer further potentialinsights into their CSR actions and social accountability ori-entations. First, their beliefs impelled them to focus upontheir accountability to God and to their fellow humanbeings. This is often represented by the term the ‘steward-ship’ of their talents, time, and resources and how they con-ducted their business that their faith required them to oweto God (Werner, 2008). Theirs was a belief in their con-science and their ‘heart’ being totally open to God’s viewand judgement (Ogden, 1972). Their custodianship overresources was seen to be granted by God and with that priv-ilege, their faith required them to show care for the poor,humanity, and their environment around them, and toemploy the resources at their command as a blessing to beenjoyed and shared with others (Kreander, McPhail, &Molyneaux, 2004). Thus God is the priority stakeholder towhom the believer relates. Self-sacrifice and responsibilityfor others is at the heart of this belief and sense of personalaccountability (Carney, 1973). Such an orientation is clearlyreflected in such Biblical texts as:

Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight.Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyesof him to whom we must give account.

[Hebrews 4:13 New International Version (NIV)]

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves toGod.

[Romans 14: 17 (NIV)]

For the Christian, faith and the undertaking of ‘goodworks’ for the benefit of others has been a fundamentalarticle of belief which also underpinned these industrial-ists’ orientation towards CSR actions. Faith without goodworks was seen to be unjustified (Zaret, 1992). Hence thenotion of actions that outworked one’s faith in deliveringservice for the good of God’s kingdom and to the benefitof others was held out to be a pathway to God’s approvaland a pre-requisite to being saved at final judgement. Forthe believing Christian, faith and good works were there-fore inextricably interlinked (Hamann, 1975; Jenkins,2002; Nichol, 1975; Schreiner, 2009). The following Bibli-cal text examples illustrate this faith and actions remit,emphasising that the Christian will be held accountableto God by their actions.

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someoneclaims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faithsave them? Suppose a brother or a sister is withoutclothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘‘Goin peace; keep warm and well fed,’’ but does nothingabout their physical needs, what good is it? In the sameway, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, isdead.

[James 2: 14–17 (NIV)]




Of further relevance to these industrialists’ CSR andsocial accountability orientations was the Christianresponsibility to avoid drawing attention to their pietyand good works or self-aggrandising their charitableactions towards others. The failure to adhere to thisrequirement risked their losing God’s approval and rewardin heaven (Filson, 1977; Plant, 2004). This was seen to becrucial to limiting a believer’s self-estimation and main-taining the priority of God’s view of their actions overthe perceptions of others (Hagner, 1993; Harrington,1991). Thus for the Christian believer, humility and avoid-ance of self-seeking publicity for their good works wenthand in hand with prioritising their accountability to Godas well as to those people they sought to serve and assist.For the industrialists in this study, Christian social actionwas not an option and was to be conducted quietly. Forthem it was an article of faith. These principles are amplyillustrated in such Biblical texts as:

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front ofothers to be seen by them.. . .. . .. . ..when you give to the needy, do not let your lefthand know what your right hand is doing, so that yourgiving may be in secret. Then your Father, who seeswhat is done in secret, will reward you.

[Matthew 6: 1, 3–4 (NIV)]

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Donot think of yourself more highly than you ought, butrather think of yourself with sober judgment, inaccordance with the faith God has distributed to eachof you.

[Romans 12: 13 (NIV)]

What is particularly notable with respect to these Chris-tian concepts of faith, actions and accountability, is thatthe linkage drawn between faith and good works connectsa faith-based sense of social responsibility to an orienta-tion to rendering accountability through action. For theseChristian adherent industrial leaders, the religious beliefsdid not allow a faith without works option. The two ideaswere indissolubly joined. Thus a predisposition to actionbased corporate social accountability owed much to thereligious principles to which they were wedded. Beforeproceeding to consider these historical cases and their con-temporary implications, this analysis now turns to themuch discussed social responsibility driver in today’s cor-porations: the business case.

1 Non-government organisations in the nonprofit (third) sector thatfocus on social and environmental responsibility issues and activities.

Interpreting the contemporary business case

The pursuit of socially and environmentally responsiblestrategies has increasingly been advocated as making goodbusiness sense as well as making positive contributions tosociety and environment. This notion has been promul-gated primarily in the managerialist literature under thebanners of ‘the business case’ and ‘corporate strategic phi-lanthropy’. However many longer term CSR objectives areincompatible with shorter term corporate financial objec-tives, so that CSR strategies may be jettisoned wheneverthey imperil financial objectives (Lertzman & Vredenburg,2005; Unerman & O’Dwyer, 2007).


It has been argued that organisations demonstratingsocially responsible practices can offer distinctive compet-itive advantages, enhance corporate reputation, advancemarket position, and improve employee motivation andproductivity (Brammer & Millington, 2005). Potential cor-porate CSR benefits may accrue in the forms of lowerlabour costs and related health and safety costs, improvedoperating processes and related cost savings, plus betterpremium rates from insurers and lenders (Azapagic,2004). Thus the business case seeks operational and finan-cial returns from investments in CSR strategies, buildingintellectual, social and reputational capital (Brammer &Millington, 2005; Day & Arnold, 1998). Enhancing corpo-rate CSR reputation is argued to assist in justifying thecharging of premium prices for corporate products and ser-vices, improving corporate access to capital markets andmaintaining customer loyalty and investor approval(Brønn & Vrioni, 2001). Boatright (2009) argues that mostcontemporary business executives have now accepted thatit is to their companies’ advantage to respond to govern-ment, employee, consumer and community pressure toadopt CSR. This simply reflects their economic rationalistresponse to a market for virtue, maximising economicand social returns (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002).

Associated with the business case for CSR has been thepromotion of corporate citizenship which focusses uponCSR strategies and programs that best match and capitaliseupon the organisation’s distinctive core competencies andcompetitive advantage, aiming to simultaneously meetsocietal expectations while enhancing corporate profile,brand and profitability (Boatright, 2009; Lawrence &Weber, 2007). This can include social investments, cause-related marketing, non-profit organisation partnershipsand more (Garriga & Melé, 2004). As Windsor (2006) argues,it is an attempt to navigate between the economic and eth-ical approaches to CSR. The corporate motivation remains abusiness case of instrumentally managing stakeholders formarketplace success (Breman et al., 1999). Allied to corpo-rate citizenship, corporate strategic philanthropy employsa corporation’s key competencies and major resources toaddress social and environmental issues that best align withthe corporation’s objectives and market profile. It deliber-ately aims corporate donations of money, resources, exper-tise, staff time, etc. at assisting societal and environmentalneeds aligned with the organisation’s self-interest andfinancial returns, enhancing corporate image, reputation,goodwill, product and service awareness, consumer loyaltyand ultimately corporate profits (Hess, Rogovsky, & Dunfee,2002; McAlister & Ferrell, 2002; Wulfson, 2001). Thus cor-porate philanthropy has increasingly become an importantprofessionalised and organised arm of corporations’ globalmarketing and relationship building strategies (Hemphill,2004; Sanchez, 2000).

While trying to build their social relationships andlegitimacy, corporations face considerable suspicion andscepticism from the general public, local communities,NGOs1 and many governments. Self-interested corporate




strategic philanthropy can fall short of the altruistic philan-thropic ideal, reducing the overall value to community andsociety (Porter & Kramer, 2002; Saiia, Carroll, & Buchholtz,2003). Thus Haley (1991) sees corporate philanthropy as amasque in which corporate management portrays favour-able self-images. Critics therefore warn of the capture ofthe CSR agenda by corporations, reinterpreting and refocuss-ing CSR to be an instrumental contributor to the dominantagenda of shareholder wealth maximisation (O’Dwyer,2003).

The business case appropriation of the CSR agenda hasbeen further explained by Llewellyn (2007) and Hanlon(2008) in terms of corporations’ expanded claims to rightsand exploitation of market opportunities. Llewellyn (2007)contends that where companies find themselves underpressure to assume greater social responsibilities, theyclaim additional rights as corporate persons, includingfreedom of movement and expression, and property own-ership. For example global corporations may claim rightsover pronouncements they make about their CSR activities,rights to trade in atmospheric pollution, and rights to suenational governments for national CSR regulations thatdiminish corporate profitability. Furthermore, Hanlon(2008) sees the expanding corporate CSR agenda as bring-ing social life under the influence of the marketplace. Thebusiness case approach to CSR, he argues, translates CSRinto a commodity that is developed for its exchange valueand its creation of new markets rather than its intrinsicusefulness. When CSR develops in this way, the possibili-ties of major societal and environmental changes may belimited by ‘accepted’ assumptions about what is feasible– more radical innovations and changes being rejected astoo fundamentalist, extreme, or idealistic. The corporateinterest becomes the representation of societal interest.However, is this the entire story behind corporate socialresponsibility? Evidence suggests that there can still existpotent ethical values motivations that can explain at leastsome corporate social responsibility and accountabilityactions today and in the past.

2 E.g. donation habits, relationships with nonprofit organisations, femalegender, members of a minority group.

An ethical values motivation for CSR

Boatright (2009) argues that corporate executives havealmost no discretion in the extent to which they mightpursue a CSR agenda. Even if they have, Bakan (2004) con-tends that they may be upstanding moral citizens, withidealistic intentions, but are invariably driven to act inthe financial interests of their employing corporation tothe exclusion of all other parties. Thus even where topmanagement is constrained to participate in CSR strategiesand practices, it may follow the cues of both predecessorsand contemporaries in the pursuit of economic self-inter-est – organisational and personal (Jackall, 1988).

However there are examples of CSR, either as adjunctsto primary economic goals and strategies, or as core strat-egies and definers of corporate identity (Bakan, 2004).Boatright (2009) acknowledges that some treat CSR notonly by corporate profitability criteria, but by ethical stan-dards that require the foregoing of some levels of financialprofit for social ends. Corporate managers can experience


dissonance between corporate economic requirementsand their own values and ideologies (Jackall, 1988). None-theless, they are still capable of acting in the interests ofothers, even to their own detriment (Mitchell, Agle, &Wood, 1997). They may yet be driven by moral norms,benevolence and an intrinsic concern for others, ratherthan solely by the profit motive (Choi & Wang, 2007).O’Dwyer’s (2002) interview study of senior corporate man-agers found that a proportion of them claimed that theirpersonal values caused them to override a restricted corpo-rate profit oriented view of CSR in favour of a broadersocial focus. Sharfman et al.’s (2000) study reveals a clearrelationship between managers’ own values and the eco-nomic, legal, ethical and philanthropic issues which theyidentify and evaluate as being important. Indeed Valor(2006) argues that compared to most variables, decision-makers’ social orientation2 is a better predictor of corporatesocial responsiveness, pointing to evidence of their acting onmoral grounds but rationalising their actions through eco-nomic explanations.

Victorian England exhibited patterns of charitable giv-ing to the poor by industrial leaders that exhibited a moti-vation largely founded upon religious beliefs andinterpretations. During that period, philanthropic altruismwas conceived as an act of kindness whereby donorsgained peer group social approval, enhancing their socialstatus. However, as Kidd (1996) explains, for some it mayhave been primarily driven by a spirit of compassion andgenerosity, especially in Christian traditions that empha-sised the importance of both faith and the exercise of ‘goodworks’. On the other hand, many social and industrial lead-ers of the period developed a tradition of giving to the‘deserving poor’ (labouring classes) with the intent ofencouraging and rewarding their self-help behaviour mod-ification rather than pursuing some broader program ofcollective social reform. It alleviated inequalities but didnot necessarily challenge their continued existence(Holden, Funnell, & Oldroyd, 2009). It allowed industrial-ists to pursue targeted programs of assistance to constitu-ents with whom they developed ongoing relationships asemployers and as social benefactors. Even today’s trendsin socially responsible investing can trace their early ori-gins to religious consumer groups such as the Quakerswho withdrew their custom from companies involved inthe slave trade, tobacco, gambling and alcohol (Entine,2003).

In his analysis of the treatment of philanthropy in socialhistory, Kidd (1996) points to the limitations of the con-cept of self-interest in trying to understand and explainsocial and economic behaviour. He cites voluntary choicesthat are repeatedly made in a cultural, social, political andethical context, reflecting and enacting normative values,group interdependence, self-image, social reciprocity andin some cases, religious beliefs. In this vein,Hemmingway and Maclagan (2004) cite the influence ofmanagers who champion CSR based on their own personalvalues and beliefs, despite potential risks to their strategies




and careers. They cite the British and North AmericanQuakers’ record of corporate philanthropy based on theirreligious beliefs, citing chocolate manufacturers Rowntree,Fry and Cadbury. They go on to cite the religions of Chris-tianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Confuciansim asteaching the importance of helping others who are less for-tunate, and that these are potential underlying motivatorsfor managers engaging in CSR. Against this backdrop, ourattention now turns to the British industrial corporatesocial responsibility pioneers and their personal profiles.

CSR pioneers: Owen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever

Robert Owen (1771–1858) was a leading British indus-trialist and propagandist whose ideas helped found the co-operative movement, infant schooling, and trade unionism.Raised in Wales, he worked in drapers shops in London andManchester, later in partnership acquiring and managingthe cotton mills at New Lanark in Scotland for over a quar-ter of a century. It became the largest cotton spinning busi-ness in Britain, its factory and village of over 2000inhabitants being visited by thousands of people fromaround the world. Subsequently Owen moved to the USAleading a failed experiment in communitarian living,returning to Britain as a promoter of radical social reform.During his tenure at New Lanark, Owen pioneered a rangeof radical CSR and social accountability strategies that wonhim great recognition amongst the business and generalcommunity of his day (Harrison, 1968, 1969a, 1969b;Infed, 2006; The National Archives, 2004).

Born in Yorkshire, Titus Salt (1803–1876) served anapprenticeship as a wool-stapler, joined his father’s firmas a wool buyer, subsequently setting up his own firm topioneer the spinning of alpaca wool from Peru. Salt becameone of the most successful industrialists in the city of Brad-ford, moving his operations to the outskirts of Bradfordwhere he built a woollen mill and the model industrial vil-lage of Saltaire. His mill at Saltaire employed 3500 peopleand his village housed 4500 men, women and children andattracted visitors from around the world as a leadingexample of British industry. Salt held various Bradfordlocal government elected offices and participated in thepush for free trade, Chartism, and the Reform League. Hewas also a major philanthropist, donating major gifts to awide variety of organisations and charities in the Midlandsand London (Bradley, 1980; Jeremy & Shaw, 1986;Reynolds, 1983).

George Cadbury (1839–1922) was the third son of JohnCadbury who founded the family cocoa and chocolate firmin 1831. On their father’s death in the early 1860s, Georgeand his brother Richard recovered the family business fromnear collapse. In Britain they pioneered the extraction ofcocoa butter and the elimination of additives from choco-late, producing a higher quality chocolate than their com-petitors and built a new factory (Bournville) and itsassociated Bournville Village and gardens on the outskirtsof Birmingham. Here they pursued many social welfarestrategies for their workforce. The village began with 200houses and by 1904 housed a population of over 2600becoming a town planning showplace and influencing thefirst British Town Planning Act of 1909. By the 1980s the


Bournville Village Trust boasted an estate in south-westBirmingham of more than 7000 houses. They were alsoknown for their major philanthropic activities such as giftsof property, the building of a hospital, and the constructionof a convalescent home for children. George was briefly anelected representative in local government, and laterowned The Daily News, and The Star, as liberal counters tothe British conservative press. George’s social justice com-mitment earned him the opposition of both political andindustrial adversaries (Bradley, 1987a, 1987b; Cadbury,2010; Jeremy, 1984; Smith, Child, & Rowlinson, 1990).

William Hesketh Lever (1851–1925), a leading industri-alist of the late Victorian period, was the son of a Lanca-shire retail grocer, starting employment in his father’sbusiness and becoming his father’s business partner,expanding the geographic and product range of that busi-ness over a period of 14 years. He subsequently purchaseda soap factory, there manufacturing Sunlight Soap; a supe-rior quality soap to its contemporary rivals. This productand its allied brands grew into his firm Lever Bros. Ltd.,one of the largest British multinational corporations of itsday, boasting over 10,000 employees around the world.Lever is remembered for his strategies to improve hisworkers’ social welfare. Between 1888 and 1914 he builtthe village of Port Sunlight as a model industrial commu-nity, adjacent to his factory. This he saw as a form of shar-ing corporate prosperity with its workers. Lever brieflyengaged in political life serving three years as a Liberalmember of parliament and engaged in several other inter-national business ventures (Jeremy, 1991; Jeremy & Shaw,1985; Witzel, 2003a).

These were four of the leading and highest profile Brit-ish industrialists who simultaneously pursued businessand social objectives. They pursued an agenda of organisa-tional change, community leadership and social innova-tion. Owen was arguably the path breaker whoseinfluence spread to other industrialists who followedhim. Other identities who shared some of these socialand philanthropic interests included Edward Akroyd, Sam-uel Morley of the firm I & R Morley, Jeremiah Colman, JesseBoot and Quaker employers such as Joseph and BenjaminSeebohm Rowntree, Hans Renold, George Palmer of Hunt-ley & Palmer, and Sir William Mather of Mather and Platt(Child, 1969; Smith et al., 1990; Wagner, 1987). Thus thefour cases presented in this paper signify an organisationalCSR movement that was being taken up by a variety ofindustrialists, particularly in the Victorian era. Owen, Salt,Cadbury and Lever’s highly personalised leadership of theirenterprises, their personal driving of CSR strategies thatextended beyond their organisation into the wider com-munity, suggests their behaviour as strategists with per-sonal visions extending beyond their organisationalboundaries. To better understand the significance andimport of their social responsibility visions and strategies,it is important to consider the socio-industrial context inwhich they operated.

The 19th century socio-industrial environment

All four industrialists shared a common period of highactivity spanning right across 19th century Britain. Theirs




was an era of industrial expansion in both countryside andcities, with poor mill and factory working conditions, lowlevels of education, bad housing, poor health standardsand rising levels of urban crime (Witzel, 2003a). Peoplemigrated from the countryside into towns and cities thatwere expanding well beyond their housing and infrastruc-ture capacity. The effect on city living conditions was ‘cat-aclysmic’ (Silver, 1969, pp. 9–10). Titus Salt’s Bradford forexample, had inadequate drainage, poor sanitation (andin 1832 an associated cholera epidemic), over 200 millchimneys emitting sulphurous fumes, the highest propor-tion of malnourished and crippled children in England,and an average life expectancy of 18 years. Wool comberswere the lowest paid in the textile industry, often livingin extremely poor conditions. While the century witnessedgradual improvements, overcrowded housing and povertyremained ongoing issues for working people into the20th century (Bradley, 1987b; Reynolds, 1983).

In Owen’s Lancashire and Scotland, approximately halfthe workers employed in cotton mills were children, withthe majority of other workers being women. Many of thechildren were recruited as paupers aged as young as sixyears, by mill owners from the starving Scottish crofters,city slums or from workhouses run by public authorities(Cole, 1965; McCabe, 1920; Morton, 1962). Children’s’working conditions included six day weeks, long workinghours of up to 16 hours per day, subservient conditions,and physical abuse from despotic supervisors: a situationof virtual slavery (Harvey, 1949; Sargant, 1860). They suf-fered stunted growth, permanent crippling and ongoinghealth defects (Cole, 1965). Industrialists were often phys-ically removed from their mills, factories and employees,leaving them as distant employers focussed on profitsrather than people. Improvements in child labour condi-tions in the cotton spinning mills took over 25 years. Eventhen legislation only restricted employed children to9 years of age working a maximum 69 hour week. Adultstoo, invariably found themselves bound into conditions ofreal servitude and suffering (Harvey, 1949).

Education levels were also extremely poor. The 19thcentury began with no publicly funded education, espe-cially disadvantaging impoverished children. Into thisbreach stepped the Christian denominations, concernedto foster children’s ability to read the Bible and the cate-chism. These included the Methodists, Anglicans, RomanCatholics, Baptists and Quakers. While religion remaineda largely middle class pursuit through this century, theChristian denominations attended to working class educa-tion, particularly through the institution of the SundaySchool which in some locations recorded attendances dou-ble that of conventional weekday schools. Private educa-tional standards were highly variable and schools wereoften characterised by rote learning and severe discipline.Adult education in forms such as local institutes was alsodominated by religious organisations (Cole, 1969;Harrison, 1967, 1969a; Reynolds, 1983).

This brief overview of the social context across the late18th and into the early 20th century offers a context forOwen, Salt, Lever and Cadbury’s strategies. They were sur-rounded by varying degrees of community poverty, indus-trial exploitation, inadequate living standards, poor health


standards, industrial pollution, harsh working conditions,and limited educational availability and standards. Thisharsh industrial and social context triggered their reactionsagainst it, notwithstanding the currency of such conditionsacross factories, mills, mines and cities. Despite beingembedded in this context, they saw strategic opportunitiesfor change and organisational differentiation from thecompetitors of their day. Thus they developed and publiclydeclared views on social justice and responsibility, inno-vating associated strategies in their organisations. It is tothese strategies that this paper’s analysis now turns.

Early social responsibility strategies

These industrialists engaged in a variety of CSR strate-gies relating to their employees. They ranged from workingconditions, to workplace health and safety, insurance andunemployment schemes, employee facilities, recreationand holidays.

Child labour conditions

Owen pioneered the improvement of child labour work-ing conditions. He stopped importing child paupers, set10 years as the minimum age for child employment (com-pared with the contemporary starting ages of 6 or 7 years),and cut the working day from 14 to 10.75 hours. He reor-ganised work routines, provided for meals and rest breaks,and organised a clean and safe mill with an accident rateamong the lowest in Britain (McCabe, 1920; Witzel,2003b).

Workplace health and safety

Clean and well organised working environments werealso pursued by Salt, Cadbury, and Lever, in marked con-trast to general factory conditions of their day (Gardiner,1923; Williams, 1931). In addition, they invariably set upemployee medical and dental services (Harrison, 1969b).Cadbury installed resident doctors, nurses and dentists,workplace surgeries, factory first aid boxes, a program ofchild dentistry for all children in the factory’s neighbouringvillages, a convalescent home for workers recovering fromillness or surgery, accident prevention inspectors anddetailed procedures for accident and fire prevention andinvestigation (Bradley, 1987b; Cadbury, 1912, 2010). Cad-burys also founded the Women Workers’ Social ServiceLeague to improve the working conditions of womenworkers in neighbouring factories (Dellheim, 1987).

Insurance and unemployment schemes

Health, pension and unemployment schemes were alsoinstituted. Beginning with Owen, these industrialists intro-duced health insurance schemes for employees (Cole,1965; Donnachie, 2000) while Lever and Cadbury alsointroduced company pension schemes for workers(Dellheim, 1987; Rogers, 1931; Smith et al., 1990) and inCadbury’s case, supplements to government unemploy-ment benefits (Rogers, 1931; Williams, 1931). On major




occasions when work was unavailable due to externalforces, Owen and Salt paid continuing wages to their unoc-cupied workforce (Cole, 1966; Harrison, 1968, 1969b;Reynolds, 1983).

Facilities, recreation and holidays

These industrialists also provided their employees withkitchen/cooking facilities, dining rooms, children’s playareas, libraries, sporting grounds, gardens and shops.(Gardiner, 1923; Williams, 1931; Witzel, 2003b). Withrespect to employee recreation, Salt and Cadburys spon-sored many different sporting, cultural and other leisureactivity clubs (Cadbury, 1912; Rogers, 1931). They alsosupported works dinners and employee trips (Bradley,1987a; Reynolds, 1983). Cadburys were the first employersin Birmingham to give their employees a half day holidayevery Saturday, and to close the factory on bank holidays(Jeremy, 1984; Williams, 1931). They gave Christmas,new year and summer parties (Dellheim, 1987) and anannual summer camp at the beach for employees(Cadbury, 1912). Lever too arranged weekly dances in win-ter, and staff excursions to locations in Britain and Europe(Bradley, 1987b).


So these leaders’ CSR strategies embraced the full scopeof workplace conditions, health and safety, employee pen-sions and insurance, and employee lifestyle and socialwell-being. Just as their societal visions were far reaching,so their scope of self-imposed accountability took a holisticorientation. They translated their care for others aroundthem into observable moral and social action. Theirs wasa visible accountability to the other, rendered in the publicdomain via a range of CSR strategies. One highly visiblesocial responsibility and accountability strategy was theirdevelopment of model factories and villages.

Fig. 1. Owen’s New Lanark Mill and Worker Housing.

Model factories and villages

Owen, Salt, Lever and Cadbury all attempted to developmodel factories and villages that departed from the cus-toms and standards of their day, contributing to the health,welfare, education and living standards of both theiremployees and their local communities. These were estab-lished at the fringes of (or removed from) contemporaryurban industrial centres of population and housed signifi-cant proportions of each industrialist’s workforce. Thesemodel factories and villages contributed to dischargingtheir accountability for the work they did and the wealththey created. These huge investments in very public provi-sion of complete villages and associated facilities for theircommunities became public forms of accountability tostakeholders most directly affected by their company oper-ations. It was an action based strategic form of account-ability driven by a moral sense of responsibility for thoseless fortunate than themselves. Thus recipient stakehold-ers could observe and adjudge these business leaders’CSR and social accountability quite personally and directly.


Owen’s New Lanark village

Owen improved on his mill’s associated village thataccommodated 200 families, adding another storey tomany houses and each year building further housing toattract families. He maintained the streets, and establisheda company store (Booth, 1869; Cole, 1965, 1969). At itszenith, Owen’s factory village housed almost 2300 peopleof whom approximately 2000 were employed in his factory(Sargant, 1860) (see Fig. 1).

Titus Salt’s Saltaire

Saltaire, built by Titus Salt over a 20 year period, com-prised 22 streets occupying 49 acres of land (Bradley,1987a). It was located three miles from Bradford and beganwith 14 shops and 163 houses and boarding houses accom-modating 1000 people. By the census of 1871, Saltaireboasted a population of 4300 in 824 houses and servedby 40 shops. Those of working age all worked in his mill,by 1870 amounting to about 2500 of the mill’s capacityworkforce of 3200. The standard of housing was signifi-cantly better than that available for working people inBradford (Jeremy & Shaw, 1986; Meakin, 1985; Reynolds,1983). Salt’s mill, covering almost 7 acres and housing1200 power looms was the world’s first completely inte-grated woollen textile factory. It was revolutionary in bothsize and design, embracing both noise and pollution reduc-tion technology (Bradley, 1987a, 1987b) (see Figs. 2 and 3).

Lever’s Port Sunlight

At Port Sunlight, Lever moved his soap factory acrossthe Mersey from Liverpool and developed an adjacent130 acre village. Initially he built 28 cottages and then builtanother 800 cottages between 1889 and 1914, housing3600 people of whom more than 3000 were employed inthe factory (Bradley, 1987b; Jeremy, 1991). Most cottageswere of two basic designs but decorated in a wide rangeof styles. All had gardens and faced green areas and openspaces (Bradley, 1987b). The village boasted wide tree–lined roads and pavements, with a 25 acre park in the mid-dle. Company gardeners tended the front gardens of thevillagers’ houses (Meakin, 1985) (see Figs. 4 and 5).



Fig. 2. Titus Salt’s Woollen Mill.

Fig. 3. Saltaire Worker Housing.

Fig. 4. Lever’s Port Sunlight Soap Factory.

Fig. 5. Port Sunlight Village Green.

Fig. 6. Cadburys’ Bournville Factory.


Cadbury’s Bournville

In the 1870s George Cadbury and his brother movedoperations from the centre of Birmingham to the cityboundary, building a replacement factory twice the size ofthe original (Cadbury, 2010). The Bournville factory waswell lit and ventilated, surrounded by parks and gardens(Dellheim, 1987). Initially 143 houses were constructed on120 acres adjoining the factory, 16 acres allocated to parks,


playing grounds and open spaces. Each house had an aver-age land area of 500 square yards with deep backyards pre-planted with fruit trees, supplied with gas, water anddrainage by the City of Birmingham. By 1900 the villagehad grown to over 500 acres including 370 houses housingalmost 2500 people, a proportion of who were in Cadbury’semploy (Cadbury, 1912; Smith et al., 1990; Williams, 1931).By the 1980s the Bournville Trust owned a large estate insouth-west Birmingham that supported over 7000 houses(Jeremy, 1984) (see Figs. 6 and 7).

A built environment

These villages were also provided with a range of socialand educational buildings and facilities. In Owen’s estab-lishment, he planned schools, playgrounds and lecturehalls. These were incorporated into his ‘‘Institution forthe Formation of Character’’ reflecting his focus upon edu-cation. He also opened the surrounding woods for recrea-tion, and instituted a sick club and a savings bank (Cole,1965; Harvey, 1949). Subsequently the villages built bySalt, Lever and Cadbury variously included an impressivearray of facilities as listed in Table 2. Generally, publichouses and alcohol were banned, with the exception ofLever who later reluctantly conceded to communitydemands (Cadbury, 1912; Meakin, 1985; Reynolds, 1983).



Fig. 7. Bournville Village Green.

Table 2Industrial Philanthropists’ factory village facilities, activities and services.

Facilities Activities & services

Community halls GardeningFactory dining halls CookingSchools Art and craft classesHospital ConcertsDispensary Village flower showConcert hall FairsSwimming pool Lecture seriesPublic baths and washhouses Health insuranceChurches BandsArt gallery Gymnastic clubsMuseum Fishing clubsChildren’s playgrounds Horticultural societiesFootball and cricket grounds Football and cricket teamsBowls and quoits greens Company day trips and

holidaysGymnasiumLecture theatreLibraries and reading roomsBilliard roomsInstitutes for continuing

education


Some of these villages also included ‘almshouses’ at free orreduced rents for older residents and pensioners (Bradley,1987a; Reynolds, 1983). The villages also offered theircommunities a range of activities and services as shownin Table 2 (Bradley, 1987b; Jeremy & Shaw, 1986;Meakin, 1985; Williams, 1931) (see Table 2).

For each of these industrialists, their CSR strategiesclearly constituted a core strategic focus rather than anancillary strategy subservient to dominant financial strate-gies. Their approach diverged from today’s commonly heldbelief that despite corporate declarations of CSR, the finan-cial focus remains dominant and exclusive. This is evidentfrom their major capital expenditure commitments,worker housing, community infrastructure, educationalfacilities, and recreational and social facilities. Admittedlythese constituted social controls over employee and com-munity attitudes and behaviour, thereby benefiting theindustrialists’ own organisations. Nonetheless they alsoadvanced their personal social change agendas, transform-ing economic into social activity with visible social conse-quences. This reflected their own moral and ethical senseof responsibility that demonstrably went beyond any


economic focus. What manifestly appeared to be CSR strat-egies, simultaneously rendered a personal moral and socialaccountability to the other. That accountability was exe-cuted and transmitted through publicly observable action.This accountability and its related actions were under-pinned by some quite specific visions pursued by theseindustrial pioneers.

Social responsibility visions

Did particular visions drive these industrialists’ com-mitment and expenditure for the construction and devel-opment of these model villages? At New Lanark, RobertOwen wanted to demonstrate to the community of hisday that industry could be successful without exploitingand degrading the children and adults it employed. As partof that vision, he aimed to establish a healthy village com-munity. His overriding quest was to show that humanitycould be improved by surrounding people with a betterquality environment (Clayton, 1908; Harvey, 1949). TitusSalt’s vision of the factory village was partly in responseto a desire to forge peace between capital and labour inthe aftermath of Chartism, and a paternalistic view of whathe considered to be the conditions for moral and socialorder in society (Reynolds, 1983).

Cadbury’s town planning modelling

George Cadbury pursued the village concept from hisown personal resources in order to avoid tying the villagespecifically to membership of the Cadbury Company. Inhis view, the cause of many of the social evils of his daylay in poor quality housing and crowded industrial cities.He wanted to create a model of good town planning andquality house building at reasonable cost. Interviewed in1903, he passionately argued ‘‘We must destroy the slumsof England or England will be destroyed by theslums. . .. . .. . .We must not house our workers in a vileenvironment and expect their lives to be clean and blame-less. We must do justice in the land’’ (Cadbury, 2010, p.163). In December 1900, Cadbury deliberately gave awayhis personal holdings in the village housing, structuringthe village trust so that he had no direct control over thecommunity and so that his children would not inheritthe housing. This action reflected two Quaker inspired per-sonal beliefs, namely avoiding the accumulation of exces-sive personal and family wealth and providing goodhousing for corporate workers in a clean, wholesome coun-try environment (Cadbury, 1912; Dellheim, 1987;Williams, 1931). From Christian concepts of accountabilityto God, this reflected the earlier discussed requirementthat one’s faith must be accompanied by good works beingundertaken for the poor and needy, with stewardship ofone’s talents and resources being evidenced in actiondirected towards ‘the other’.

Lever’s healthy living agenda

Lever too, was persuaded of the need for housingreform and for improving upon the poor quality,




overcrowded housing in industrial cities. For him themodel village was in part an experiment in deliveringhealthy living for his workers and providing them withthe benefits of business profits in forms such as good hous-ing and recreation. This reflected his moral sense ofresponsibility for his employees that manifested itself ina social accountability for employee remuneration and liv-ing conditions, again also triggered by his religious beliefs.Unlike Cadbury however, and more in the tradition ofOwen, he tied village life and conditions directly to his fac-tory and exercised direct paternalistic control over villagelife (Witzel, 2003a). Nonetheless, moral and social respon-sibility were intrinsically linked as drivers of Lever’s socialaccountability.

Lever’s healthy living agenda was shared by all fourindustrialists who aimed to transform even their local com-munities. In terms of health and welfare, their villages com-pared favourably with general population statistics of theirday. In Saltaire, public alcohol abuse and violence were vir-tually non-existent (Bradley, 1987a). Analysis of 1906 deathrates in the areas surrounding Saltaire suggest that its deathrate was lower than adjacent districts, supporting an earlierstudy made by the Shipley medical officer in 1893(Reynolds, 1983). At Port Sunlight in the early 1900s, infantmortality was 70/1000 compared to 140/1000 in neigh-bouring Liverpool (Bradley, 1987b). At Cadbury’s Bournvillefor the five years ended 1910, the death rate of 5.7/1000stood in marked contrast to the national death rate of14.6/1000 and infant mortality of 62.4/1000 significantlybettered the national average of 117.4/1000. Indeed, Bourn-ville adult and infant death rates were half those recorded inneighbouring Birmingham (Cadbury, 1912; Gardiner,1923). By the early 1930s, the Bournville adult (7.2/1000)and infant (56/1000) death rates still compared very favour-ably with the national averages of 12.1/1000 (adult) and 71(infant) respectively (Rogers, 1931). Thus not only did theytake observable actions, but these industrialists deliveredtangible benefits to their workforce and surrounding com-munity. They rendered accountability both through theiractions and the outcomes they produced.

Social responsibility for societal improvement

The visions these leaders pursued, were founded intheir religious and philosophical convictions that empha-sised the priority they should accord to their accountabilityto God as their primary stakeholder and to their fellowhuman beings. Rather than simply allocating some of theirwealth as ad hoc charity, they developed these societalimprovement visions and related social accountabilitieswhich they then pursued strategically. Their enhancingthe lives of their employees and communities reflectedreligious expectations that their faith and moral responsi-bility for others would be integrated with their actions tosupport the welfare of the poor and marginalised. Such adeep seated sense of personal moral responsibility andsocial accountability went far beyond the traditional mas-ter–servant or land owner–tenant responsibilities charac-teristic of their day.

These four pioneers can claim uniqueness in theirapproaches to social accountability in a number of


respects. First they often articulated and promulgated theirunderlying philosophies of industrial management, workerrights, community development and social justice. Pollard(1964, p. 513) cites them as ‘‘models of social progress’’and ‘‘creations of men with a social conscience and somesocial idealism’’ who extended the benefits of industrialinnovation and growth to the working population. Second,their innovations invariably extended beyond a purely in-house provision to their own workforce and extended tosocial and housing programs that engaged and includedthe wider community. Cadbury for example expandedthe concept of the worker village to a large scale experi-ment in community planning (over half its populationincluding persons not being employed by Cadbury)(Ashworth, 1951). Third, they were prepared to incur costswell beyond their own corporate financial self-interest, inpursuit of their wider social agendas (Ashworth, 1951).Fourth, they distinguished themselves as protestant reli-gious dissenters who translated their personal religiousbeliefs into their workplace and surrounding communities,for example building chapels and churches and joiningtheir employees in regular religious meetings. Such exam-ples set by Salt, Cadbury and Lever were echoed by Strutts,Newton Chambers, Greggs and Darbys (Pollard, 1964).Even their housing schemes ‘‘were not conceived of simplyas ventures in better housing, but also as essays in moralimprovement’’ (Gaskell, 1979, p. 446).

For these industrialists, their social agendas reflected asense of moral responsibility for service to ‘the other’ andconsequent actions inextricably linked with accountability.Both were primarily driven from their religious and philo-sophical convictions. Theirs was not a predispositiontowards sporadic philanthropic donations, but rathertowards challenging long term visions of industrial prac-tice and societal improvement. They and those who emu-lated them, left an indelible mark on British business andsociety. Some of its manifestations can be seen in thosewho emulated their social responsibility innovations.

Leaders and followers

The number of other industrialists who emulated forexample, the Cadbury factory and village concepts, sug-gests that they did gain traction in their vision of recon-structing actors’ reality in the field. Further, their publicvisitor programs reflect a broad scope approach to socialaccountability, first through broader avenues of disclosurethan the traditional formal written report, and second bydemonstrating social accountability through their socialactions. The latter was entirely consistent with, for exam-ple, Quaker, Congregationalist and Methodist theologiesof faith being expressed through ‘good works’. Theiraccountability to God and their standing in their ownChristian community, especially as dissenting protestants,impelled them to outwork their faith through actions inservice of others. Without this, their theology saw theirown faith as being without justification. As custodians ofwhat they believed to be their God-given resources, carefor humanity, the poor and their environment was anunquestioned duty.




Setting the example

These model factories and villages attracted significantnational and international attention, drawing large num-bers of visitors from many countries. For example Owen’soperations at New Lanark recorded rates of visitor arrivalof around 30 per day and between 1815 and 1825. Almost20,000 names are registered in the New Lanark visitorbook (Cole, 1966; Harrison, 1969b). Saltaire regularlyattracted visits from leading public figures and by attend-ees at national social science association conferences whenheld in the region (Reynolds, 1983). Port Sunlight experi-enced thousands of visitors visiting the factory and the vil-lage each year (Jeremy, 1991). Bournville village became amajor attraction especially for housing and town plannersand garden city association members from England, Eur-ope and even Australia (Cadbury, 2010; Gardiner, 1923).Each was regarded as highly significant experiments inindustrial and community living. This reflected theseindustrial leaders’ pursuit of public accountability andthe proselytisation of their social visions through observa-ble actions. Such publicly demonstrated accountability wasnot antithetical to their religious beliefs since those beliefsemphasised the avoidance of self-aggrandisement of ‘goodworks’ that a believer conducted. Yet again, the linking offaith and good works through actions to the benefit of oth-ers, was a hallmark of their belief systems. It was permis-sible to lead an observably good life, demonstrating andsharing the fruits of their success, but with humility andcircumspection. Such public forms of rendering an accountas their attracting large numbers of visitors to their socialand industrial experiments was permissible: especially asit modelled social welfare strategies for others to followand disseminate through the wider society. Such publicmodelling thereby constituted ‘good works’ of itself.

Other British industrialists emulated the Cadburymodel village concept, including Quaker chocolatiersJoseph and his son Seebohm Rowntree’s garden villagenear York established in 1900, Quaker and householdgoods businessman James Reckitt’s garden village in EastHull, Ebenezer Howard’s garden city at Letchworth in Hert-fordshire and at Welwyn, and Henrietta Barnett’s 1907suburb of Hampstead Garden in North London. MargaretheKrupp when expending 1 million marks of her husband’sarmaments fortune in establishing a housing estate at Mar-garethenhohe in Essen, Germany, required her architectsto base their plans on Cadbury’s Bournville village(Cadbury, 2010).

Of course not all industrialists followed in the footstepsof Owen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever. Many ignored theirworker’s welfare and living conditions, leaving it to localtown and city landlords and communities to do what littlethey would for factory employees. Additionally, firms thatestablished their operations in the middle of towns and cit-ies chose to ignore the physical and social infrastructureneeds of their growing workforces. Instead of addressingovercrowded housing, insanitary living conditions andwidespread health and malnutrition endured by theirworkforce, they often minimised their own capital andrecurrent expenditures in search of maximum possibleprofit. Others did provide some levels of worker housing


and infrastructure in order to maintain a dependent, com-pliant workforce while extracting profits from even suchhousing provision. Theirs was an overwhelming businesscase motivation (Gaskell, 1979; Pollard, 1964).

The pattern of emulation

However, the influence, both direct and indirect, thatthese four industrial pioneers had upon their fellow indus-trialists and those who followed has been arguably signif-icant. Indeed, their rendering of a morally drivenaccountability in the public domain was greatly amplifiedby the mirroring of their social visions and strategies inmany other industrial organisations of their era and subse-quently. They arguably lead a movement and a momentumthat achieved high profile both through the observations oftheir actions by others, their proselytization of their visionsand strategies, and their social accountability strategiesbeing emulated by other industrialists. Some followedtheir example simply through realising that to build orgrow their factories and secure and maintain a workforce,they themselves had to build infrastructure (since in theirday, governments did not make such public infrastructureprovision as is often the custom in many countries today)(Gaskell, 1979). Thus they faced the necessity of buildingworker housing, transport, farms, and even security ser-vices. Examples of factory farms for example includedAmbrose Crowley’s, Plymouth and Cyfartha Ironworks, Lit-ton Mill, Greggs at Styal, Oldknow at Mellor, the SwintonPottery, the Quaker Lead Co., Darley Abbey Cotton Millsand Parys Mine Co. (Pollard, 1964). The list of large facto-ries that provided cottage estates for their workers andwho experimented with better than contemporary livingamenities was lengthy, at the time constituting the largesthousing development programs in Britain. In England, theyincluded cotton mills at Hyde, Newton, Dukinfield, Crom-ford, Milford, Belper, Bakewell, Mellor, Staleybridge, Cress-brook, Backbarrow, Darley Abbey, Styal and Bollington. InScotland they included Owen’s New Lanark, Deanston,Catrine, Blantyre and the Stanley Mills. British ironworksincluded Carron (see Fleischman & Parker, 1990), EbbwVale, Cwmavon, Dowlais, Plymouth, Nantyglo, Ketley, andButterly. In the woollen industry there was BenjaminGott’s enterprise, in copper there was the Warmley Co.,Charles Roe, and Morrison, and in pottery there was Wedg-wood at Etruria (Pollard, 1964).

Some of those who emulated this study’s pioneers, didso quite directly. Ashworth (1951) points to Owen’s pio-neering and public theorising of his approaches to workermanagement, conditions and employer accountability fortheir welfare leading directly to the Ashworths’ similarinnovations at Turton and the Greggs’ emulation at Styal.Gaskell (1979, p. 441) reports that ‘‘in the 1820s, the Qua-ker mining villages of Nenthead and Middleton in Teesdalewere regarded as showplaces’’. Other examples includedRichardson linen manufacturers, Bessbrook in Ireland(1846), and Price’s candle factory worker village at Brom-borough (1853). Akroyd emulated Salt in building a suburbfor his workers around his factory at Copley, near Halifax.Lever emulated Cadbury. Both Cadbury’s Bournville andLever’s Port Sunlight led to the formation of a Society For



Table 3Robert Owen’s school and education agendas.

Education aimed at social reformFocus upon natural and spontaneous learningEmphasising kindness rather than punishmentEmploying innovative methods of student engagement rather than

rote learningReading, writing, arithmetic, sewing, geography, history augmented

by:Dancing and singingEquipping children for community lifeEmbracing co-education


Promoting Industrial Villages in 1883 (Ashworth, 1951).On the Doncaster coalfield, colliery owners built workervillages at Bolsover (1891) and Creswell (1896) with aclear aim of developing community and contributing tosocial improvement (Gaskell, 1979). Subsequent emula-tions of employer provided worker housing, and gardencity experiments occurred in British Aluminium’s FoyersEstate on Loch Ness (1895), Joseph Rowntree’s Easwick(1904), Brodsworth Main Colliery Company’s WoodlandsCollier Village (1907), and grocery businessman Sir JamesReckitt’s Hull garden suburb (1908) (Ashworth, 1951).

Owen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever were also emulated inthe provision of worker medical services, sickness/accidentfunds, and pension schemes (Pollard, 1964). Pollard (1964)argues that while many industrialists’ motivationsreflected economic necessity (the business case), theyactually followed the lead of industrialists driven by awider social conscience. While the emulators’ own motiva-tions may have reflected some variety of economic ratio-nalism, social responsibility, humanitarian ideals and/orreligious belief, they ‘‘left a residue of humane outlook onthe average employer’’ and many did provide worker hous-ing, amenities and education without any legislative com-punction to do so (Pollard, 1964, p. 530). Ashworth (1951)sees them as having made major impacts on mid-19th cen-tury social reform and Gaskell (1979) argues that espe-cially the late 19th century models developed by Cadburyand Lever reflected notions of worker welfare and housingreform characteristic of the Victorian era’s response topressing social issues and profoundly influenced subse-quent improvements in town housing design and the gar-den city movement. Marinetto (1999) has taken theanalysis of the flow-on influence of these industrial socialwelfare pioneers even further. He argues that post WorldWar II, Christian church and business leaders promotedthe bringing of Christian ethics into the social and eco-nomic structures of business and society. He contends thatwhile their influence subsequently waned, the 1970s wit-nessed the re-emergence of international corporations intoengagement with the growing corporate social responsibil-ity dialogue and involvement in CSR interventions, citingexamples such as IBM, British Steel, and Pilkingtons.

Thus both in the era of the four pioneers and in morerecent times, it is arguable that at least some aspects ofcorporate social accountability bear the marks of those ear-lier religious based moral and social responsibility beliefs.The extent to which a wider accountability remit is actu-ally discharged rather than merely claimed, arguably relieson the degree of personal engagement and leadership oforganisational leaders such as Owen, Salt, Cadbury andLever, who were prepared to drive their personal ethicsand visions of accountability through the organisation’sstrategies. The weight of evidence concerning followersand emulators across the UK bear testimony to their suc-cess in exemplifying their social accountability throughobservable actions and in promulgating their social agendavisions of rendering a wider social accountability to com-munity and humanity. One particular example of thatwider social accountability lay in their commitments tocommunity education and philanthropy.


Education and philanthropy

Education also loomed large, particularly in Owen andCadburys’ social responsibility activities. Volumes havebeen written about Owen’s educational philosophy andstrategies. Compared to the largely harsh disciplinary pri-vate schooling of his day, Owen pioneered education thatbroke with many traditions. Some of their characteristicsand agendas are listed in Table 3 (Donnachie, 2000;Harrison, 1968, 1969b; Infed, 2006). Children were admit-ted around 18 months of age and educated up to the age of12 years, including workers’ children, child workers in themill and any from the neighbourhood (Cole, 1969; TheNational Archives, 2004). To this end he founded the firstschool for workers’ children, became nationally recognisedas a leading educator, and is generally credited with found-ing the first infant school in Britain (Age of the Sage, 2006;Harvey, 1949).

George Cadbury exhibited a lifetime commitment toeducation of not only his workers but the community atlarge, for example through the Adult School movementfor which he personally taught for over 50 years (Jeremy,1984). He founded five Christian colleges: one for SundaySchool teachers, two for training missionaries, and a resi-dential college for working men (Bradley, 1987b). From1906 Cadburys mandated that children they employedaged 14–16 years (raised to 18 years in 1910) must finishwork an hour early twice per week to attend evening clas-ses, with apprentices and male clerks being educated inthis way to 21 years and 19 years of age respectively. Therewere also day classes and a continuing education pro-gramme, backed up by scholarships for those wishing topursue further education (Rogers, 1931; Williams, 1931).Education was overseen by the Works Education Commit-tee and the Works School Committee and covered generaleducation, practical living skills, physical education, com-mercial training, apprenticeship training and technicaltrade training (Cadbury, 1912; Dellheim, 1987).

Both Owen and Cadbury demonstrated a highly per-sonal commitment to education of their workforce andassociated communities as a vehicle for social changeand as a pathway to enhancing the self-sustaining welfareof humanity. This commitment was delivered throughdirect personal engagement in the design, delivery andresourcing of education programs: again an implementa-tion of accountability through action. Cadbury’s personalinvolvement in years of teaching exemplifies the




outworking of a duty of service to others, reflecting an indi-vidually accepted moral responsibility for the welfare ofothers, discharged with humility. Their education philoso-phies and implementation were executed both as privateendeavours and as public strategies: both rendering formsof social accountability.

These industrialists’ CSR activities included significantphilanthropic pursuits. Salt made sizeable donations allhis life, including a charitable trust for the poor of Shipley,donations to schools, hospitals, orphanages, missions,churches and to the Liberation Society, contributions tothe rebuilding of York Minster, and to mechanics institutesaround Britain (Bradley, 1987b; Reynolds, 1983). In Bourn-ville Village, Cadburys built a convalescent home for Salva-tion Army officers – also being a holiday home forBirmingham children from poor families (Wagner, 1987;Williams, 1931), gave a religious studies centre to the Soci-ety of Friends, and converted a large house as a hospital forcripples (Cadbury, 2010; Jeremy, 1984). George Cadburywas also involved in the Anti-Sweating League and theNational Old Age Pensions League (Gardiner, 1923). Levertoo, donated to the redevelopment of his native town ofBolton, funding a park for the city of Liverpool, and endow-ing schools of town planning, tropical medicine and Rus-sian studies at Liverpool University (Bradley, 1987b). Thisclearly evidences a personal acceptance of responsibilityand accountability in the widest sense, holistically embrac-ing their employee and community lives (health, educa-tion, working and living conditions and social life). Suchpersonal involvements by these industrialists, as exampledabove, bear testament to a moral philosophy of societalengagement and Christian mission and accountability. Thisphilosophy of both social responsibility and accountabilitywas outworked, as required by their religious beliefs, in theform of actions (i.e. ‘‘good works’’), without which theirfaith was considered by their faith community to be with-out substance.

Historical traces of the business case

With respect to these four industrialists’ implementa-tion of CSR policies and strategies, in addition to their reli-gious and philosophical motivations, the business case alsooffers an associated explanation. However this requireshistorical interpretation within the context in which Owen,Salt, Lever and Cadbury operated.

Of all four, Owen probably experienced the greatestconflict between his CSR agenda and the commercial pres-sures facing his enterprise. While his mills experiencedpositive financial returns during his tenure, his businesspartners objected to business involvement and resourcesexpended on CSR programs, arguing for cost minimisationand profit maximisation (Clayton, 1908; McCabe, 1920).Harrison (1969b) has argued that these strategies enabledOwen to pay lower wages than his competitors whileretaining workers through the appeal of his welfare provi-sions. However Cole (1966) disagrees and contends thatOwen paid better wages, required shorter working hoursand provided better working conditions than his competi-tors and still produced commercial success. The debate


between Owen and his partners ultimately raged aroundwhether the admittedly profitable mills would have beenmore or less profitable without his CSR program. However,as Cole (1965) has argued, mill profits were never Owen’sprimary focus. His primary objectives lay in using theNew Lanark to launch and demonstrate the efficacy of hissocial and educational ideas. Such tensions as existedbetween Owen and his partners resonate with Oakeset al.’s (1998) articulation of the battles that can take placeover what customs and practices are to be deemed legiti-mate and which are to be excluded from acceptability.

Amongst these historical cases there are hints of the‘win-win’ business case often argued for CSR today. Forexample Salt’s move from his scattered Bradford factoriesto the purpose built mill and village at Saltaire allowedhim to simultaneously pursue his industrial reform idealsand reduce his former operating locations’ inefficiencies,secure better water supply and reduce transport costs. Inaddition the company controlled village facilitated profit-able housing investment, secure rent revenue and a stableworkforce (Jeremy & Shaw, 1986; Reynolds, 1983). Asanother example, in the 1880s, Cadburys cut theiremployee working hours because research had found thatemployees working an 8 hour shift were more productivethan when they worked a 10 hour shift (Witzel, 2003a).All four industrialists recognised the contribution to organ-isational profits of investing in their workforce. Owenargued that his welfare expenditures would be more thanoutweighed by resulting efficiency gains and commercialreturns (Booth, 1869). Salt saw the benefits of a reliableand loyal workforce associated with Saltaire village(Reynolds, 1983). Through superior working conditions,Cadburys openly stated that business efficiency andemployee welfare were two sides of the same issue,whereby healthier, happier, better educated workers weremore productive and a greater asset to the company andhence to the community (Robertson, Korczynski, &Pickering, 2007; Witzel, 2003a). They considered employeewelfare schemes to boost efficiency so they self-fundedthose schemes (Dellheim, 1987). It is also arguable thattheir CSR programs facilitated these industrialists’ exerciseof direct social and moral control over their employees.Benefits to the workforce elicited employee trust and loy-alty and compliance with the employer’s concept of appro-priate attitudes and behaviour (Podmore, 1971; Reynolds,1983). Thus emerged the enlightened employer view thatworkers could be inspired and led rather than coercedand driven, thereby enhancing their self-esteem and effi-ciency (Dellheim, 1987).

In their recognition of the linkage between CSR strate-gies, worker productivity and business efficiency, theseindustrialists anticipated or echoed elements of the scien-tific management school of thought. This is reflected intheir references to worker and business efficiency, elimi-nating waste and reducing cost (Child, 1969; Smith et al.,1990). Efficiency was pursued through attending to work-ers’ health, living conditions, hours of work, skill, extra-curricular interest and activities and loyalty. In additionit was pursued through research into improved technolo-gies and processes, standardisation of tools and equip-ment, piecework payment systems, overtime reduction,




worker training, worker and work flow movement design,employee performance records, employee disciplinary sys-tems, stock control, music broadcasts to reduce factorywork monotony and more (Cadbury, 1912; Harrison,1969b; Jeremy, 1984; Robertson et al., 2007). Howeverany identification of efficiency with scientific managementarguably overstates the case. To varying degrees, theyexhibited a more sympathetic attitude to workers thanFrederick Taylor’s conception of scientific management.As an example, George Cadbury is cited as adopting ele-ments of the scientific management approach but neitherembracing its authoritarian approach to managingemployees, nor treating them as mechanistic tools of pro-duction (Child, 1969; Dellheim, 1987).

Regarding these industrialists’ CSR motivations assolely driven by elements of scientific management orthe contemporary business case offers a simplistic, one-dimensional interpretation. For people such as RobertOwen and George Cadbury, the social experiment in bet-tering humanity’s condition was paramount. Their pursuitof this through industrial organisation was a means to abroader end (Gardiner, 1923; Witzel, 2003b). Reynolds(1983) saw mixed motivations in Salt’s pursuit of workerwelfare and business success. Bradley (1987b) points toLever’s Biblical Christianity as a combination of spiritualand practical resource for his industrial and social experi-ments. These industrialists’ religious and social beliefsmeant that commercial imperatives could not threatentheir CSR agendas. This paper now moves on to exploretheir underlying beliefs and philosophies.

Religious and philosophical foundations

For these four industrialists their personal agendas offerpowerful explanations for the scope and longevity of theirCSR strategies. Owen was for much of his life a rationalistand millenialist. Salt and Lever maintained lifetime alle-giance to the Congregational denomination of Christianity,while the Cadbury family were devoted and practisingQuakers. These philosophies and beliefs directly impactedupon their industrial practices, CSR and social accountabil-ity strategies. Their sense of and approach to socialaccountability emanated from strong personal convictionsregarding their moral responsibility to God and humanityfor the welfare of their fellow workers and communitymembers. That was rooted in their strong protestant dis-senting religious convictions that emphasised theirresponsibility for ‘the other’, and the essential linking ofwhat they believed with what they practiced, namely faithand good works.

Owen the millenialist

As a millenialist, Owen looked to the eradication of soci-ety’s weaknesses and the initiation of a consequent age ofuniversal love in a new perfect society upon the onset ofthe imminent millennium. Thus Owen’s approach to inno-vating and managing New Lanark applied his belief in theperfectibility of humanity through appealing to what hesaw to be the basic goodness of humanity in his workforce.


This utopian view assumed that humans naturally tendtowards co-operation and harmony so that industry couldbe organised and workers motivated to produce materialrewards for themselves and their employers in an atmo-sphere of social harmony. Thus his factory innovationswere part of a grander aim to do good for humanity(Cole, 1969; McCabe, 1920; Tarlow, 2002). However Owenwas a committed rationalist, reflecting the age of enlight-enment but also focussed upon social action. He sawhumanity as endowed with the gift of reason and able tocreate its own happiness. His was a rationalist pursuit ofsocietal change and reordering: creating a new moralworld (Clayton, 1908; Harrison, 1967; Silver, 1969). ThusOwen’s was a crusade for accepting moral responsibilityfor others. Owen disapproved of his contemporaries’approach to the treatment of their manufacturing work-force and saw this as perverting the individual and harm-ing society overall (Cole, 1966). While his philosophy wasincreasingly located within a spiritualist belief system,Owen’s CSR and social accountability agenda still reflectedhis early Methodist denomination roots which emphasiseda belief structure focussed around faith and good works.

The congregationalists: Salt and Lever

Salt and Lever both came from Congregationalist familybackgrounds, imbued with the nonconformist conscienceand its enlightened values (Bradley, 1987a, 1987b). Saltwas a devout Christian, an active member of the Congrega-tional Church community and a radical social reformer,being involved in many of the reform movements of histime (Bradley, 1987b; Reynolds, 1983). From this beliefsystem he contended that one of his motivations was tosocialise and ‘Christianise’ business and working relation-ships with a view to reproducing the family style of organ-isational relationships more characteristic of the days ofnon-mechanised hand labour work (Bradley, 1987b). Levertoo was a Congregationalist who maintained a belief inself-help and a loyalty to the Congregationalist denomina-tion throughout his life (Bradley, 1987b; Jeremy & Shaw,1985). He drew on the Calvinistic principles of work, thriftand stewardship of life, for which a person would be heldaccountable to their Creator (Jeremy, 1991). Congregation-alism, a product of English Puritanism, was based on theCalvinistic and Reform traditions that prioritised theauthority of scripture and salvation by faith. They shareda more radical socially conscious form of Protestantismwith Methodists and Baptists (Hastings & Selbie, 1911;PHILTAR, 2010). Here we see the clear foundations of socialaccountability conceptions that privileged one’s account-ability to God while at the same time demanding responsi-bility and accountability for humanity: one’s owncommunity and the stranger. Accountability to the other,through actions and deeds, is centre stage. This was to beexpressed through good works (actions) that would bothalleviate peoples’ suffering while at the same time demon-strate to one’s Maker the sound stewardship of one’s time,talent and resources. In this philosophy, faith, moralresponsibility, and good works for others are indeliblyjoined.




The Quaker Cadburys

The Cadbury family, including brothers George andRichard, were devout Quakers reflecting and applyingthose beliefs and values throughout their working lives.They saw themselves as personally and morally responsi-ble for the physical and spiritual welfare of their employ-ees, since their faith saw the seed of God in every human(Dellheim, 1987; Wagner, 1987; Witzel, 2003a). Even theirviews on profit and business success were the product ofthe Quaker view that failure to fulfill business agreements,incurrence of excessive debt or bankruptcy was a form oftheft ultimately punishable by being excluded from thefaith. Indeed their approach to business was governed byformally developed Quaker Advices promulgated in 1738,Extracts promulgated in 1783, Rules of Discipline promul-gated in 1833, and Doctrine, Practice and Discipline updatedin 1861, all directly relating to business conduct (Cadbury,2010). For the Cadburys this was a very specific and tangi-ble form of demonstrating social accountability throughsound stewardship not only of one’s resources but of themanner in which one’s business was conducted. Account-ability to God was expressed through accountability toone’s faith community, assessed through the degree ofcompliance with its specific rules of practice. So they sawthemselves as accountable to God, to their faith commu-nity, and to the people (workforce and community) theyaimed to serve.

Applying their faith through business and industrialpursuits was for them an instinctive approach, especiallyas in Britain, Quakers for many years had been precludedby their religious affiliation from attending university(being Dissenters), entering the professions, enlisting inmilitary forces (being pacifists) or taking up politics(rejecting established religion and refusing to swear oaths).Business and industry, activities still neglected by the tra-ditional ruling classes in Victorian Britain, were thereforetheir primary and highly successful vocation. Consequentlythe Quaker business lineage in England included the Dar-bys’ manufacture of the first iron bridge and railway tracks,Pease’s railway and passenger train building, Wedgwood’spottery business, Clark’s shoes, Reckitts household goods,Bryant and May’s matches firm, and 74 Quaker foundedbanks including Barclays bank and Lloyds bank (Cadbury,2010; Grant, 2003; Wagner, 1987).

So profound was the Quaker integration of their faithwith their workplace reforms, that for example GeorgeCadbury conducted a daily service to start the workingday. Its continuity for over 30 years was ensured by aworker petition in response to its temporary cessationthree years after it began in 1866. For the Cadburys itwas an article of faith that money should be earned andspent ethically and that the principles of Christian charityshould guide all business and working transactions(Bradley, 1987b). Indeed Quaker capitalists abjured thepursuit of wealth for personal gain, their faith requiringthem to apply it to their workers, the local communityand society at large (Cadbury, 2010). Again, we see quitespecific evidence of Christian concepts of accountabilitybeing pursued by these Quaker industrialists striving todemonstrate their adherence to the articles of their faith.


Theirs was an implementation of accountability throughboth personal and organisational actions. Responsiblestewardship of resources, sharing with the less fortunate,prioritising accountability to God, service to ‘the other’ inpreference to oneself and exhibiting faith through actionare all in clear view here. Cadbury’s belief in the sacredvalue of human life motivated his working to improvethe material and spiritual conditions of his employees(Gardiner, 1923; Wagner, 1987). As Deborah Cadbury’s(2010, p. 182) study puts it ‘‘George Cadbury’s religiousconvictions shaped his world, and unified every aspect ofhis life.’’ On his death 16,000 people silently (in Quaker tra-dition) attended his funeral service, and tributes poured infrom thousands of people whose lives had been directlytouched by him. Their engagement in his funeral repre-sented a direct action based form of stakeholder responseand feedback to Cadbury’s action-based CSR strategiesand associated social accountability efforts.

Religious social reformers

Thus religious and philosophical beliefs were primarydrivers of these industrialists’ industrial reforms and CSRand social accountability practices (Clayton, 1908;Dellheim, 1987). For example Child (1969) acknowledgesthat Quaker employers were highly sensitive to moralissues and adopted significantly different employmentpractices from those common to industry of their day. Thiswas consistent with the Quaker view of industry as being aservice to the community to which Quakers could devotethemselves without committing the sin of generatingwealth for its own sake. Especially given the historical per-secution and social disapproval Quakers had suffered, theywere eager to demonstrate their service to humanitythrough their business and trade. Their religious commit-ment to personal frugality and simplicity of living alsofreed them to apply their wealth to CSR strategies for thebenefit of their employees and community (Cadbury,2010; Rainstrick, 1968). For Cadburys then, employee wel-fare strategies were not an adjunct but absolutely integralto business operations (Cadbury, 1912), and reflected theirfaith based acceptance of moral responsibility for the wel-fare of others.

Unlike the scientific management school, Owen, Salt,Lever and the Cadburys had philosophical and religiousconvictions that individuals must be treated with loveand respect, and that therefore labour was not a tool, ormere means for the production of wealth For the Quakersparticularly (as well as for Owen), their beliefs promotedmore egalitarian approaches to workplace relations and apreference for co-operation as the basis for factory sociali-sation (Dellheim, 1987). Of all four industrialists, Lever wasarguably the only one who was more instrumental in hiscombining of religious belief and practice with workplacemanagement and associated CSR strategies. His distinctionbetween business as a means to an end and as an end initself, was somewhat blurred (Jeremy, 1991).

Marinetto (1999) points to subsequent British industri-alists in the 1940s and 1950s also being religiously affili-ated and promoting Christian ethics in business. Theywere arguably influenced by these industrial pioneers’




sense of duty to transform the quality of life, character andideals of the individual, offering them the prospect of self-improvement. Living conditions and personal develop-ment, in their view, was inextricably linked. For them,social justice and accompanying social stability were tobe pursued through the alleviation of poverty, and the pro-vision of housing, health, education and recreation (Booth,1869; Jeremy & Shaw, 1986; Morton, 1962; Wagner, 1987).The individual’s character, skills and well-being was inex-tricably linked to the public good and the betterment ofsociety (Donnachie, 2000; Wagner, 1987). Theirs was awider vision of social reform – reducing poverty, develop-ing good citizens, improving social conditions, contributingto the public good (Cole, 1966; Podmore, 1971; Silver,1969). This service to the individual worker was enactedthrough a largely communitarian vision whereby the com-munal life of the factory and its associated village could bedeveloped as a positive influence upon those employedthere, invoking amongst them a sense of community(Cole, 1969; Tarlow, 2002; Williams, 1931). Co-operationbetween employer and employees and between employeesthemselves remained an essential ingredient for this com-munity based approach (Cole, 1965).

These industrialists deliberately strove to implant notonly their CSR innovations into their organisations, butalso their personal moral values in their execution of socialaccountability. Their innovations addressed social andindustrial issues, while simultaneously breaking awayfrom industrial and social conventions of the day. Theyaimed to reshape their communities’ conventions andsocial norms according to their deeply held religious,philosophical and social justice beliefs. These includedtheir CSR practices being aimed at instilling self-help andself-improvement in the working classes and ‘deservingpoor’. Their beliefs and personal convictions gave them avision of a changed future to which end they marshalledtheir available resources to enact. For them, values andaction – faith and good works, were inseparable. The ques-tion then arises as to what relevance and implications theirvalues and strategies carry for today’s globalised, corporateenvironment.

From historical to contemporary industrialenvironments

The historical analysis offered in this study is arguablyrelevant to the contemporary global industrial context.Elements of the industrial environment in many countries,particularly developing economies in which global manu-facturers carry out operations, suggest parallels to theenvironment in which the industrial pioneers in this studyoperated. For example, in arguing the persistence of scien-tific management advocates Frederick Taylor’s and HenriFayol’s historical industrial environments in the presentday, Parker and Lewis (1995) cited similarities across thoseeras including technological change affecting industrialoperations, intense competition extending to internationalmarkets, the impact of economic recessions on both com-panies and their employees, and a persistent pre-occupa-tion with industrial efficiency. The period across whichOwen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever conducted their operations


experienced population shifts towards the industrial cities,the employment of labour transferring from predomi-nantly agrarian to industrial enterprises, increasing factoryproduction, and international competition particularlyfrom North America and Europe (Briggs & Jordan, 1934a,1934b; Hyman, 1995; Pelling, 1974).

A continuing global environment

Similar industrial environment changes are still obser-vable today in the global economy’s expansion, particularlyin its transferral of industrial manufacturing operationsfrom developed to developing economies in such regionsas East Asia, China, Central and Eastern Europe and LatinAmerica. Indeed developing countries globally increasedtheir share of world manufacturing output from 5% in theearly 1950s to 23% towards the end of the 20th century(Dicken, 2003; UNIDO, 2009). The United Nations Indus-trial Development Organization (UNIDO, 2009) reportsthat the rapid diffusion of industrial production fromdeveloped to developing countries has occurred throughthe agency of transnational corporations, internationalsupply chains, the liberalisation of trade flows and theexplosive industrial growth in manufacturing and tradeover the past 30 years. It finds that with their pool of lowcost workers, developing economies have gained majormarket share across low, medium and high technologymanufacturing. So as it was for the UK in the 19th and20th centuries, for these economies, industrialisation hasbeen a primary driver of economic growth (Fagerberg &Verspagen, 2007; Szirmai, 2009).

In drawing parallels between the environments ofOwen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever and those of today, two par-ticular commonalities stand out. First, those early industri-alists faced intense competition and associated pressureson short term costs and profitability, both locally andinternationally. Second, they not only competed in localand international markets for supplies and with their prod-ucts, but commenced the development of the earliest mul-tinational enterprises.

A competitive world

With respect to the intensity of competition and itspressures on short term profitability, Owen’s cotton millcompeted with many cotton mills in both Scotland andLancashire, technological change and product refinementbeing key competitive weapons employed. Competitionfrom both English and continental European millssqueezed profit margins. The cotton industry was thereforeunder pressure with even well managed mills at timesreturning losses (Marwick, 1924; Mitchell, 1925;Robertson, 1971). In a number of manufacturing areas,including textiles, competition periodically intensifiedand prices declined. Limited available comparative finan-cial returns data for cotton mills suggests that Owen’sNew Lanark Mill was satisfactorily but not outstandinglyprofitable, with some years exhibiting very low profits(Church, 2000; Robertson, 1971). Similar variable profittrends were in evidence in the textile mills in Titus Salt’sBradford. Competition there was intensified by a dramatic




expansion in the number of mills being built, doubling theoutput of yarn in the 1815–25 period. So profits fluctuateddramatically between firms and across years, with highlyvolatile and deepening recessions in evidence. Of worstedfirms, only 6% survived between 1830 and 1850 (Seed,1993). Cadbury too, faced strong competition in a ‘crowdedmarketplace’.

When Richard and George started resurrecting theirfather’s business, they were the smallest chocolatier of30 other cocoa manufacturers (some of whom werealready becoming insolvent). Their established competi-tors like Taylors of London, Dunn and Hewitt of Penton-ville, Rowntree of York, Terry of the midlands, and Fry inBristol boasted much more extensive product ranges.When Cadburys’ opened their first London office, Fryalready had a sales force established in 50 of the largest cit-ies and towns in the UK. Such was the intensity of compe-tition and profitability pressures, that competitors likeRowntree and Hershey (in the USA) regularly struggledwith cash flow and profitability (Bradley, 2008; Cadbury,2010). Lever too, had to contend with rising costs of rawmaterials supply and fierce advertising competition, seeingcompetitive threats not only at home but in the USA(Leverhulme, 1919; Wilson, 1954). Testament to his indus-try price competition, Sunlight Soap price rose only once inits first 20 years, and British soap makers regularlyattempted to sign fixed price agreements which invariablybroke down. Lever insisted that his international associ-ated companies show satisfactory profits or face closure(Macqueen, 2005). These four pioneering industrialiststherefore faced the rigours of competition and short termprofitability pressures still typical of national and interna-tional business today. Their social responsibility andaccountability strategies were therefore forged in environ-ments not dissimilar to those faced by many contemporarycorporate managers and shareholders.

An international orientation

These industrial philanthropy pioneers invariablyexhibited strong international orientations in their busi-ness outlook and strategies. Robert Owen for examplesaw the beginnings of a British cotton industry that pro-duced the greatest volume of yarn of any other economyoutside India and which came to dominate the global mar-ket (O’Brien et al., 1991). Indeed the prosperity of the Brit-ish cotton industry not only depended on its overseasmarkets but sourced its supplies from the USA, India andEgypt (Marwick, 1924). However Cadbury and Lever arewidely acknowledged as two of the pioneering multina-tional enterprises who not only sold into internationalmarkets but established operations in overseas locationsincluding sourcing their raw materials (Cadbury, 2010;Dunning, 1983; Dunning & Archer, 1987). Cadbury facedintense competition not only from British chocolatiers,but from French competitors such as Menier, Coenraadvan Houten in the Netherlands, Nestlé and Lindt in Swit-zerland, and Milton Hershey in the USA (Cadbury, 2010).From the 1870s onwards, the Cadbury brothers expandedexport operations into Ireland, Canada, Chile, Australiaand New Zealand. They publicly articulated the challenge


of global business and competition, particularly addressingthe challenge of Fry’s global ambitions. By the mid-1880sthey had expanded operations and sites across the Africancontinent and also expanded operations into India, Burma,Ceylon, the West Indies, South America, the Middle East,Thailand and Java, and by the early 1900s, their operationswere also established across Europe, USA, Canada, and Aus-tralia (Cadbury, 2010; Jeremy, 1991).

Lever’s early global strategies grew what ultimatelybecame the largest British multinational firm of its day,Unilever (Fieldhouse, 1978; Gourvish, 1987). He set upsubsidiaries in developing countries in Africa, Asia andthe Pacific Islands, as well as in the USA. The intentionwas both to provide guaranteed sources of raw materialsupply through his company plantations and processingfactories as well as to market product into both local andoverseas markets (Fieldhouse, 1978; Henderson &Osborne, 2000; Leverhulme, 1919; McClintock, 1995). Asearly as the late 1890s Lever was publicly expounding hisinternational vision of creating multinational operationsand became one of the first industrialists to establish man-ufacturing operations in multiple overseas countries, by1906 having committed 25% of his capital to his overseasoperations (Macqueen, 2005; Sargeant, 2011). Let us nowconsider some specific industrial labour conditions thatexhibit parallels between the times of these British indus-trial philanthropists and today’s globalised and oftendeveloping country manufacturing environment.

A developing industrial environment

British industrial worker living and working conditionsthrough the Industrial Revolution and beyond have beencritiqued by many observers, as have been developingcountry industrial worker conditions today. Just as Britishenterprises pursued low wages for competitive exports inthe 1800s, so debates continue concerning the wage levelspaid by manufacturers in developing countries today, withsome multinational corporations paying above local wagelevels, while others exploit low local wage levels or sub-contract their production to local sweatshops (Brown,Deardorff, & Stern, 2003; Polyani, 2001). The early Britishindustrial cities were typically replete with unregulatedslum housing, insanitary living conditions, overcrowding,as well as air and water pollution. Poor wages, long work-ing hours, destitution, chronic hunger and malnutritionwere rife (Briggs & Jordan, 1934a, 1934b; Engels, 1892;Parker & Reid, 1972; Pelling, 1974; Woodward, 1981). Indeveloping countries, worker living conditions with someof these characteristics can still be found. At the macro-level, Easterlin (2000) provides statistics on life expectancyat birth that show less developed countries significantlybelow developed countries. Even where employed by mul-tinational companies, workers are at risk of income lossshould these companies cut back production or move loca-tion to even cheaper labour sources. Their employmentoften is casualised and temporary (Rama, 2001).

Child and female labour also has been a feature of boththe historical British industrialisation period as well as indeveloping country industry today. Both then and todayin developing economies, it has offered industry a cheap




supply of unskilled and semi-skilled labour, while at thesame time being a means of poor families augmentingtheir income (Briggs & Jordan, 1934a, 1934b; Parker &Reid, 1972; Pollard, 1965.) Today, child labour is still ende-mic in developing economies, more present in agriculture,but nonetheless still occurring in industry. InternationalLabour Organization statistics document 18% of the worlds’children aged between 5 and 14 years as being economi-cally active (amounting to 153 million in 2008)(Edmonds & Pavcnik, 2005).

Education too has its parallels between the British 18thand 19th centuries and conditions in many developingcountries today. The record on British education throughits Industrial Revolution period is clear. The State offeredno education until the late 19th century. What provisionwas made came through religious organisations and pri-vate establishments of highly variable quality. To manychildren, education was simply unavailable. Lower classchildren counted themselves fortunate if they were edu-cated to the age of 10 or 12 years (Briggs & Jordan,1934a, 1934b; Parker & Reid, 1972; Pelling, 1974). Theeducational parallels in today’s developing countries areall too evident. The International Labour Organization(ILO, 2008) reports that many communities have inade-quate schooling facilities offering poor quality educationirrelevant to local conditions, and at any rate being beyondthe economic means of many families. This results in largenumbers of illiterate people joining the unskilled labourmarket. Most developing country budgets for primary edu-cation today are reported by the United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) asinsufficient to meet the goal of universal compulsoryschool attendance. Many schools in these countries sufferpoor governance, high staff turnover, inefficient and cor-rupt use of funds. Many such schools are inadequatelyequipped and have poorly trained teachers, resulting oncemore in high rates of illiteracy. In these countries, between30% and 50% of children leave school after 4–6 years of pri-mary education, being neither literate nor numerate (BMZ,2010–2012). Easterlin’s (2000) tabulation of adult literacyrates in 1950 and 1995, reveal dramatic differencesbetween developed and less developed countries. Yetmany of these less developed countries are sites of majorindustrial expansion in recent decades, just as Britainexperienced through the 18th and 19th centuries.

Gospell (2007, chap. 18) argues that in the 19th andearly 20th centuries, employers assumed they had an auto-matic right to dictate the terms of employment. In the Brit-ish case, this reflected traces of the Industrial Revolutionenvironment in which industrialists rose to wealth andpower through ‘‘ingenuity, self-reliance, energy, and busi-ness acumen unhampered by fine scruples’’ (Briggs &Jordan, 1934a, 1934b). Some merchants and manufactur-ers had banded together to invoke parliament to suppressworking-class efforts to reduce working hours, improvewages, and better working conditions and to produce leg-islation penalising workers for attempts to organise labouror damage industrial property (Parker & Reid, 1972). Againin today’s developing country environment, the UnitedNations International Labour Organization has reportedthat 12 million people are exploited in forced labour condi-


tions worldwide with total global profits estimated to be$32 billion annually. Again, one underlying driver is attrib-uted to be the economic pressures felt by companies inaffluent developed countries to search for new locationsof cheap labour. This exploitation often occurs through cor-porate subcontractors operating in developing countriesand forming part of the global corporations’ supply chain(Bowden, 2005).

Thus dimensions of the British industrial environmentpertaining in the era of the four industrialists who arethe subject of this study, arguably exhibit parallels totoday’s global manufacturing environment. Issues such asworking and living conditions, child and female labour,education, and exploitation were dominant contextualissues surrounding early British industrial developmentand its early multinational enterprise beginnings. Theseremain in our contemporary global manufacturing worldtoday. Hence it is arguable that the British industrial phi-lanthropists examined in this study faced many of thecompetitive pressures, short term profitability challenges,international competitor incursions and global businessdevelopment imperatives that characteristically face cor-porate management today. Furthermore, as manufacturers,their labour force and industry conditions exhibited manyof the characteristics all too evident in contemporary man-ufacturing environments in both developing countries andeven in sweatshop environments in developed countries. Itis therefore apposite to examine the strategies and initia-tives of these British industrial pioneers who championedsocial responsibility and accountability agendas in andthrough their enterprises, in search of possibilities forindustrial enterprises operating in similar industrial envi-ronments today.

Corporate social accountability implications

Motives and strategies for CSR and social accountabilityas addressed in these four historic cases raise the contem-porary issue of motives and behaviour with respect to bothCSR and social accountability. This is a question that hasdrawn the attention of both accounting and managementresearchers for some time, from CSR and social account-ability perspectives.

Variant social accountability motivations

As earlier discussed in this paper, many CSR researchershave either assumed or argued that CSR actions andaccountability have been driven by the business case.Nonetheless some have suspected a greater variety ofunderlying agendas. Roberts (1992) suspected the influ-ence of more factors than purely economic performance.Spence (2007) argued for more complex motivations thanfinancial market pressure for risk management signalling.Empirical studies have detected corporate management’sethical concerns, corporate leaders championing CSR andsocial accountability, and corporate leaders’ instigation ofradical social accountability (Bansal & Roth, 2000;Bebbington & Thomson, 1996; Buhr, 2002). External pres-sures from regulators, community and social movementgroups, the media and customers, have also been cited as




influential (Davis & McAdam, 2000; Davis & Thompson,1994; Fung et al., 2001; Campbell, 2007; Deegan, Rankin,& Tobin, 2002). Again, as already addressed in this paper,the business case motivation for CSR and social account-ability has been shown to embrace many of these variantmotives (Frynas, 2005; Spence, 2007). Hemmingway andMaclagan (2004) similarly identify motives such as corpo-rate image management and the integration of a globalworkforce, and Ven and Graafland (2006) point to corpo-rate reputational management in pursuit of employeeapproval and customer loyalty. Current researcher think-ing tends towards the conclusion that corporate social dis-closure is inevitably oriented towards corporate financialself-interest while privileging some priority user groupssuch as shareholders (Cooper & Owen, 2007; Messner,2009; Shearer, 2002).

However as this study reveals, those attributed CSR andsocial accountability motivations do not reveal the entirepicture. Corporate leader beliefs, philosophies and valuesmay not only condition their attitudes to such accountabil-ities, but may produce the corporate and social accountabil-ity concepts they choose to develop and implement. Theseare further revisited in related historical evidence from thisstudy and contemporary research findings as follows.

Corporate leaders: Moral responsibility

This still leaves open to consideration, the question ofwhether CSR and social accountability practices can beattributed to the values and moral responsibility of corpo-rate leaders. This study’s findings clearly suggest that theycan. The personal belief systems and social visions of theindustrial pioneers in this study, demonstrate how a lea-der’s moral responsibility can drive their conceptualisationand implementation of corporate social accountability. Asalready recognised in this paper, corporate executivesmay struggle with their own ethical values versus whatthey see as corporate financial bottom line expectations.However despite structural and cultural challenges withincontemporary corporations, this study has revealed bothhistorical and contemporary examples of corporate leaderswho have mustered sufficient influence to drive theaddressing of CSR and accountability issues. Collier andEsteban (2007) argue that corporate ethical and CSR pos-ture is driven from the top of the organisation, from whichemployees take their cues. In their study of two organisa-tional cases, Joyner and Payne (2002) identified foundersand leaders developing strategies to assist the communi-ties associated with their organisations. Maignan andRalston’s (2002) study of firms across the USA, UK, Franceand the Netherlands found CSR fostered by managers val-uing such behaviour, while Ven and Graafland’s (2006)study of 111 Dutch corporations found that CSR implemen-tation was driven more by corporate moral commitmentsthan by the traditional profit maximisation motive. Under-lying drivers of organisational leader CSR and socialaccountability have included their association with chari-table and philanthropic associations, personal commit-ments to supporting social change, and (younger)generational beliefs in social and environmental responsi-bility (Hemmingway & Maclagan, 2004).


Religious belief: Faith and good works

The religious beliefs and commitments of Owen, Salt,Cadbury and Lever have been shown to have conditionedtheir corporate leadership and social accountability strate-gies. Such a relationship has been found to resonate downthrough the years to some contemporary corporate leaders(Hemmingway & Maclagan, 2004). This has been found insuch religious traditions in Christianity, Buddhism, Juda-ism, Islam and Confucianism and was particularly evidentamong British and American Quakers including Cadbury,Rowntree and Fry, the chocolatiers (Hemmingway &Maclagan, 2004). The impact of religious belief on corpo-rate social and ethical attitudes and general decision mak-ing has been studied with mixed results. Some evidencehas identified religiosity linked to lower levels of ethicalsensitivity, commonality between religious believer andnon-believer ethical judgements, and no greater commit-ment to broader social responsibilities expressed by reli-giously affiliated persons (Brammer, Williams, & Zinkin,2006; Clark & Dawson, 1996; Kidwell, Stevens, & Bethke,1987). However evidence for a positive relationshipincludes religious belief determining ethical attitudes, reli-giosity inducing lower tolerance of unethical behaviours,and religious belief generating higher ethical standards inindividuals (Conroy & Emerson, 2004; Kennedy & Lawton,1998; Longenecker, McKinney, & Moore, 2004; Terpstra,Rozell, & Robinson, 1993; Wong, 2007). The balance of con-temporary evidence now appears to have swung towards apositive relationship between corporate leaders’ religiousbeliefs and their ethical and social responsibility predispo-sitions (e.g. Angelidis & Ibrahim, 2004; Emerson &McKinney, 2010; Fernando & Jackson, 2006; Weaver &Agle, 2002).

As found amongst the pioneers in this study, contempo-rary research has revealed that leaders’ religious beliefs’influence upon social responsibility attitudes and practicesmay take the form of accommodating organisational mem-ber religious practices and beliefs, invoking some sense ofworkplace spirituality where the meaning of organisa-tional work is elevated by association with some articu-lated transcendent moral purpose, or building a sense ofspirituality and community in the workplace (Bell &Scott, 2003; Cash & Gray, 2000). Werner (2008) found thatChristian owner–managers’ beliefs afforded them concep-tual and linguistic resources that included a sense ofresponsibility and accountability to God, a view of them-selves as public witnesses to their system of beliefs inaction, fostering organisational practices for the good ofothers. This includes a religious duty to emulate Jesus ofNazareth’s ministry to the disadvantaged and marginalised(Anderson, Drakopoulou-Dodd, & Scott, 2000).

Schwartz (2006) makes the case that God can be legiti-mately identified as a managerial stakeholder for reli-giously adherent business leaders. This carries the riskthat they may focus their primary accountability on theirGod and faith community and as a consequence adoptMessner’s (2009) strategy of prioritising a particular stake-holder, to the exclusion of others. Against this, a view ofGod as a managerial stakeholder (Schwartz, 2006) mayreposition a corporate leader’s motivation towards




exercising ‘servant leadership’. Then they see themselvesas stewards, prioritising the needs and aspirations ofothers, placing less emphasis on profit-making, andadopting a broader societal perspective in their practices.This resonates with this paper’s evidence on these pioneer-ing industrialists’ CSR actions and religious belief basedsocial accountability strategies.

This study further adds to our understanding of theimportance of the linkage between a leaders’ system ofbeliefs, for example derived from their Christian theology,and the social accountability actions they take. The conceptof the intrinsic relationship between faith and ‘good works’already discussed, sees faith without good works as unjus-tified. This more clearly explains the driving forces thatmay have compelled corporate leaders such as Owen, Salt,Cadbury and Lever, to make such significant financial, stra-tegic and personal investments in CSR strategies andaccountabilities for the benefit of the other, the powerless.


The industrialists examined in this study developed anapproach to social accountability that goes beyond ourcontemporary research focus upon formal corporatereports. It was based in their theological belief in the inte-gration of faith and ‘good works’ in service of others. Con-temporary conventional wisdom sees social accountabilityas oriented towards rendering accountability for organisa-tional actions. In contrast, to a large degree the industrial-ists in this study considered themselves accountable totheir faith communities and to society through theiractions. Thus what we today term CSR strategies, them-selves can represent public and transparent forms of cor-porate social accountability: that is, social accountabilityrendered through action. This form of action based andpublicly observable social accountability is directly refer-enced in the Biblical text ‘‘By their fruit you will recognisethem’’ (Matthew 7:16, NIV).

The concept of social accountability through action hasto date been explored only to a limited extent by account-ability and CSR/social accountability researchers (Oakes &Young, 2008). When this concept of social accountabilitythrough action includes a program of public visibility suchas the large scale visitation of these historical industrial-ists’ factories, mills and villages, and their own engage-ment in public discourse, then the potential forsignificant alternative pathways for rendering socialaccountability become apparent. They represent anotherform of an organisation’s presentation of itself throughalternative forms of front performance (Goffman, 1959).Such performances of corporate social accountability gobeyond currently conceived forms of traditional ‘account-ing’ style reports to include a wide range of public activi-ties, publicity, and social engagement that were utilisedby Owen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever. They suggest a broaderarray of possible social accountability forms than account-ing researchers have hitherto considered.

Such personally driven CSR and action based socialaccountability strategies invite comparisons with socialand environmental advocates of more recent times as thelate Anita Roddick, founder of Body Shop, Ben Cohen and


Jerry Greenfield, founders of Ben and Gerry’s ice-cream,Ray Anderson, founder of Interface carpets, and John Spe-dan Lewis, founder of the John Lewis Partnership. Otherswho have visibly outworked their beliefs through theirorganisations’ policies and practices include John Hunts-man’s development of Huntsman Chemical Corporation’spriority actions towards corporate citizenship and therelief of human suffering, David Judd’s management ofthe Alcoa Portland aluminium smelter community devel-opment programs, and Zerox corporation’s employee wel-fare programs (Cacioppe, 2000).

Contemporary examples of corporate leaders translat-ing their religious beliefs into CSR practices include JamesBurke’s 1975–1989 leadership of Johnson & Johnson,Adrian Cadbury’s 1969–1990 leadership of CadburySchweppes, Max De Pree’s leadership of the office furnituremanufacturer Herman Miller until 1988, and J. Irwin Mill-er’s 1951–1977 leadership of Cummins Engine (Murphy &Enderle, 1995). Religious convictions have also beenobserved to underpin the corporate practices of leaderssuch as Jeffrey Swartz of Timberland, Aaron Feuerstein ofMalden Mills textile manufacturers, John Tyson of TysonFoods, Truett Cathy of Chick-fil-A restaurant chain, MarionWade of ServiceMaster, the McKee family of McKee FoodsCorporation, Hebrew National meat manufacturers, andLove Box packaging manufacturers (Schwartz, 2006).Murphy and Enderle (1995) argue that the strategies andpractices invoked by such religious and values driven cor-porate leaders often exhibit several common characteris-tics: a commitment to honesty and transparency,constructing their organisation’s reality through reaffirm-ing their personal ideals, demonstrating a high level of con-cern for the impacts of their decisions upon others, andapplying their religious belief in their responsibility andobligation to others. While varying in their sources of reli-gious and values bases and in their manner and extent ofCSR implementation and social accountability practices,these contemporary examples nonetheless reflect a heri-tage of corporate CSR leadership that stretches back toindustrial pioneers such as Owen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever.

Insights from the past

Owen, Salt, Lever and Cadbury offer historical insightsthat illuminate the complexities of historical and contem-porary CSR strategies. Their innovations occurred whengovernment regulation of corporate social impacts wasarguably at a minimum level. Yet their social innovationsand experiments did not necessarily reduce overall costsassociated with labour, and their CSR activism extendeddeep into their organisations and workforces as well asextending well beyond their company boundaries toinclude members of the general community. They provideus with important examples of corporate leaders who havechosen to place CSR and social accountability at the core oftheir strategic mission.

This paper has addressed the central question of howthey shaped and enacted corporate social accountability.Its findings have revealed the specificity and visibility ofboth their CSR visions and their practical implementation




of social accountability. These were sourced in their philo-sophical and religious convictions and addressed both cor-porate and societal futures. Their religious convictionsspawned a highly personal sense of moral responsibilityfor the welfare of others that went well beyond an imme-diate business case economic focus. That sense of moralresponsibility in turn propelled them towards discharginga social accountability to their local and wider communi-ties. This was reinforced by their theology of integratingtheir belief system with practical action; namely the essen-tial linkage between faith and good works. For them, theirbelief system came to nought unless they expressed itthrough accountable actions.

These pioneers’ sense of moral responsibility for others,expressed through accountable actions, shaped their cor-porate social accountability strategies which in turn wereenacted in the form of corporate social accountabilitythrough action. The actions they took were visible andobservable expressions of social justice and social impact.Their span of activities and related impacts were signifi-cant: moving against child labour, improving workplacehealth and safety, developing employee and communityfacilities and lifestyle, educating the citizenry, modellingtown planning, and reforming industrial cities. Their ren-dering of social accountability through action suggeststhe possibility of delivering accountability through pub-licly observable CSR strategies and actions of themselves,as well as through alternative forms of communicationsuch as public accessibility to corporate sites, publishednarratives by business leaders themselves, and accountsby third party observers and commentators. These offeralternative approaches to the traditional formal narrativereport format upon which contemporary accountingresearch and practice has tended to focus.

This study contributes to an ongoing accountingresearch conversation regarding corporate and corporateleader accountability for societal impact in a number ofrespects. As Archel et al. (2011) have argued, in these his-torical social responsibility pioneer cases we find evidenceof these leading industrialists challenging the institutionalconventional wisdom of their day, embarking on majorinvestments, community infrastructure and social welfarestrategies that went well beyond both legal minima andconventional employer provisions for workforce and com-munity. Indeed they arguably invested such significantinputs as to make their social agendas part of their corebusiness, and significantly exceeding any investment thatmight be justified simply on business case grounds.

Researchers such as Sinclair (1995), Shearer (2002),Messner (2009) and Cho et al. (2012) have also discussedcorporate leaders’ sense of moral responsibility and theirpotential expression of that through their discharge ofsocial accountability. They and Roberts (2009) see suchmoral responsibility outworked through an accountabilityto ‘the other’. Shearer (2002), Brown and Fraser (2006),Shenkin and Coulson (2007), Jayasinghe et al. (2009) andMessner (2009) all consider this concern for others to beaddressed through rendering community centred account-ability. Accountability from this perspective appears asdelivered through a morally assumed responsibility forbuilding relationships with community. This study has


provided historical empirical evidence that deepens ourunderstanding of the underlying corporate leader profilesand (in these cases, religious) philosophies that laid thefoundation for the industrialists’ apparently felt moralresponsibility for the other. In addition it has explicatedthe strategies through which they related to their localand wider communities and developed multifaceted rela-tionships with them. These two sets of insights deepenour understanding of how the concepts of moral responsi-bility and accountability for the other can emerge, and howthey may be implemented.

While much of the social accountability research litera-ture has focussed upon formal narrative corporate reports,some such as Schweiker (1993), Sinclair (1995), Messner(2009) and Cho et al. (2012) have acknowledged that lead-ers’ observable actions may play an important role in theirrendering of accountability. This study advances that con-versation to considerable degree in that it has revealed thedimensions and importance of industrialists’ rendering ofsocial accountability through action. This recognitionreturns our attention to and elucidates the multiple avail-able paths to accountability that go beyond our traditionalfocus on the formal narrative corporate report. In doing soit reveals the range of publicly observable social account-ability actions open to corporate leaders and how theymay render them transparent and accessible.

As discussed in the paper, a number of parallels can bedrawn between the historical and contemporary environ-ments surrounding CSR and social accountability. In globalbusiness operations, particularly in developing economies,there are still echoes of the 19th century industrial envi-ronment that evidenced major industrial expansion,worker exploitation, substandard living conditions, andvariable levels of education. It is apparent that some corpo-rate leaders have chosen to become exceptions to theexploitative ‘model’, challenging the status quo and initiat-ing major investments in their workforces, communitiesand societies. Both in Owen, Salt, Cadbury and Lever’s eraand still today, social accountability initiatives by corpo-rate leaders have been in evidence even under the pres-sures of a highly competitive international marketplace.Many corporate social responsibility and accountabilityinitiatives have been shown to owe their genesis to thoseearly exemplars. While corporate leaders with significantownership stakes in their organisations are advantaged intheir ability to translate their personal beliefs and visionsinto CSR and accountability through action, this studyhas identified many examples of contemporary corporateleaders’ ability to pursue and shape such agendas, evenin publicly listed companies.

These historical cases suggest that even today, we stillneed to excavate CSR and social accountability dialogue,reporting and activity more deeply if we are to fully under-stand and exploit the potential mix of drivers for CSR activ-ity and its social accountability representation. However itis important to recognise that this study is not setting outto argue for legitimacy of any particular CSR or account-ability approach or to predict contemporary corporateCSR and accountability motivators. It is written from thehistoriographic tradition of seeking to enhance our abilityto understand historical contexts of present-day practice




and thereby offering the potential to diagnose the com-plexities of present day corporate actions and to identifyboth limitations and possibilities.

The historical evidence presented in this study revealsthat the CSR agenda can result from a complex mix of moti-vating factors. There is undeniably a lengthy history of ten-sions between the CSR agenda and commercial pressures,and yet we see evidence of business leaders not always tak-ing profit as their sole focus. At the same time historyreveals apparent examples of corporate founders and lead-ers placing the CSR and social accountability agendas sideby side with their commercial imperatives. In investigatingthese historical precedents for deeper understandings ofboth CSR and social accountability practice and their under-lying agendas, there is a clear need for our examining pri-mary evidence from company archives, not only in termsof accounting records, but through seeking out records ofcorrespondence, meeting minutes, business plans and thebroad spectrum of both these industrialists’ personal andtheir company records. This will afford the opportunity tocompare private reflections and deliberations with publicpronouncements, and to unpack underlying decision-mak-ing processes and their rationales. Further research wouldalso assist in assessing the durability of original founderbeliefs’ influence on corporate CSR and social accountabilitystrategies after their departures. This is a particularly perti-nent question for example with respect to family ownershipchanges or listed company takeovers of such organisations.Cadbury (2010) for example cites the abandonment of Qua-ker roots and beliefs and associated CSR strategies by (orig-inally Quaker) chocolate manufacturers such as Hershey3

and Cadbury after takeovers by global corporate giants suchas Nestlé and Kraft.

This study reveals that to varying degrees, corporateleader motivations can simultaneously embrace and reflectboth business case and personal philosophical agendas. Italso indicates that the motivating factors behind CSR andaccountability actions ought not to be assumed to reflectsimple dichotomies such as a purely business case ratio-nale or mere altruism. Social accountability may be ren-dered through corporate leaders’ deep-seated beliefs andphilosophies. The industrial and philanthropic pioneersexamined in this paper contextualised industrial and socialpractices they observed around them, conceiving and thenenacting a vision of future change. Consistent with theirpersonal acceptance of moral responsibility for others, theyexemplified the discharge of social accountability throughaction: a concept that invites further attention by corpo-rate leaders today.

Acknowledgements

This paper has undergone development since its initialversion presentation as a plenary paper at the 2008 A-CSEAR conference (Adelaide), and subsequent presenta-tions at the 2009 Interdisciplinary Perspectives onAccounting conference (Innsbruck), and the 2009 Critical

3 Milton Hershey was profoundly influenced by his mother’s Mennonitebeliefs and his Quaker schooling in the Quaker environment of Pennsyl-vania (Cadbury, 2010).


Management Studies conference (Warwick University).Further revised versions have been presented in 2010 atAUT University (NZ), Deakin University Burwood Victoria,St Andrews University, University of Dundee and StirlingUniversity Scotland. The author is also grateful to Profes-sors Garry Carnegie, Jesse Dillard, Markus Milne, Rob Gray,Chris Carter, Jan Bebbington and John Ferguson for theirinvaluable commentaries and advice.

References

Age of the Sage (2006). Robert Owen – Biography, New Lanark Mills.<www.age-of-the-sage.org/historical/biography/robert_owen.html>Retrieved through 2008–2010.

Anderson, A. R., Drakopoulou-Dodd, S. L., & Scott, M. G. (2000). Religion asan environmental influence on enterprise culture: The case of Britainin the 1980s. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour, 6(1),5–20.

Andrew, J. (2007). Prisons, the profit motive and other challenges toaccountability. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18, 877–904.

Angelidis, J., & Ibrahim, N. (2004). An exploratory study of the impact ofdegree of religiousness upon an individual’s corporate socialresponsiveness orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(2), 119–128.

Archel, P., Husillosa, J., & Spence, C. (2011). The institutionalisation ofunaccountability: Loading the dice of corporate social responsibilitydiscourse. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(6), 327–343.

Ashworth, W. (1951). British industrial villages in the nineteenth century.The Economic History Review, 3(3), 378–387.

Azapagic, A. (2004). Developing a framework for sustainable developmentindicators for the mining and minerals industry. Journal of CleanerProduction, 2, 639–662.

Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit andpower. New York: Free Press.

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model ofecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Review, 13(4),717–736.

Bebbington, J., & Thomson, I. (1996). Business conceptions of sustainabilityand the implications for accountancy. London: ACCA Research ReportNo. 48.

Bell, E., & Taylor, S. (2003). The elevation of work: Pastoral power and thenew age work ethic. Organization, 10(2), 329–349.

Benhabib, S. (1987). The generalized and concrete other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan controversy and feminist theory. In S. Benhabib & D. Cornell(Eds.), Feminism as critique (pp. 77–95). Minneapolis, MN: Universityof Minneapolis Press.

BMZ (2010–2012). Education in developing countries. German FederalMinistry for Economic Co-operation and Development. <http://www.bmz.de/en/what_we_do/issues/Education/hintergrund/bildungsituation/index.html>.

Boatright, J. (2009). Ethics and the conduct of business. Upper Saddle River,New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Booth, A. J. (1869). Robert Owen: The founder of socialism in England.London: Trubner and Co.

Bowden, R. (2005). Asia heads list of exploited labour says UN report.Sydney, Australia: World Press.org. May 17. <http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2082.cfm>.

Bradley, I. (1980). The optimists: Themes and personalities in Victorianliberalism. London: Faber and Faber.

Bradley, I. C. (1987a). Titus Salt: Enlightened entrepreneur. History Today,37(5), 30–36.

Bradley, I. C. (1987b). Enlightened entrepreneurs. London: Weidenfeld andNicolson.

Bradley, J. (2008). Cadbury’s purple reign: The story behind Chocolate’s BestLoved Brand. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation andphilanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61,29–44.

Brammer, S. J., Williams, G. A., & Zinkin, J. (2006). Religion and attitudes tocorporate social responsibility in a large cross-country sample. Journalof Business Ethics, 71, 229–243.

Breman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Doesstakeholder orientation matter? The relationship betweenstakeholder management models and firm financial performance.Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

Briggs, M., & Jordan, P. (1934a). Economic history of England (3rd ed.).London: University Tutorial Press.


http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/historical/biography/robert_owen.html

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0361-3682(14)00091-9/h0010




























http://www.bmz.de/en/what_we_do/issues/Education/hintergrund/bildungsituation/index.html







http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2082.cfm

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2082.cfm























Briggs, M., & Jordan, P. (1934b). Economic history of England. London:University Tutorial Press Ltd.

Brønn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility andcause-related marketing: An overview. International Journal ofAdvertising, 20, 207–222.

Brown, D. K., Deardorff, A. V., & Stern, R. M. (2003). The effects ofmultinational production on wages and working conditions in developingcountries. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of EconomicResearch, Working Paper 9669.

Brown, J., & Fraser, M. (2006). Approaches and perspectives in social andenvironmental accounting: An overview of the conceptual landscape.Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 103–117.

Buhr, N. (2002). A structuration view on the initiation of environmentalreports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(1), 17–38.

Butler, J. (2001). Giving an account of oneself. Diacritics, 31(4), 22–40.Cacioppe, R. (2000). Creating spirit at work: Re-visioning organization

development and leadership – Part 1. The Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 21(1), 48–54.

Cadbury, E. (1912). Experiments in industrial organisation. London:Longmans, Green and Co.

Cadbury, D. (2010). Chocolate wars: From Cadbury to Kraft – 200 years ofsweet success and Bitter Rivalry. London: Harper Press.

Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in sociallyresponsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate socialresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

Carney, F. S. (1973). Accountability in Christian morality. The Journal ofReligion, 53(3), 309–329.

Caroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Towardthe moral management of organizational stakeholders. BusinessHorizons, 34, 39–48.

Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of adefinitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.

Cash, K. C., & Gray, G. R. (2000). A framework for accommodating religionand spirituality in the workplace. Academy of Management Executive,14(3), 124–133.

Caulfield, P. A. (2013). The evolution of strategic corporate socialresponsibility. EuroMed Journal of Business, 8(3), 220–242.

Child, J. (1969). British management thought: A critical analysis. London:George Allen and Unwin.

Cho, C. H., Guidry, R. P., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Do actionsspeak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporateenvironmental reputation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37,14–25.

Choi & Wang (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach tocorporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 345–359.

Church, R. (2000). Ossified or dynamic? Structure, markets and thecompetitive process in the British business system of the nineteenthcentury. Business History, 42(1), 1–20.

Clark, J. W. (1996). Personal religiousness and ethical judgements: Anempirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 359–372.

Clayton, J. (1908). Robert Owen: Pioneer of social reforms. London: A.C.Fifield.

Cole, G. D. H. (1965). The life of Robert Owen. London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd.Cole, M. (1969). Robert Owen of New Lanark. New York: Augustus M. Kelly.Cole, G. D. H. (1966). Introduction. In R. Owen (Ed.), A new view of

society and other writings (pp. vii–xviii). London: J.M. Dent and SonsLtd..

Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employeecommitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1), 19–33.

Conroy, S. J., & Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). Business ethics and religion:Religiosity as a predictor of ethical awareness among students.Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 383–396.

Cooper, S. M., & Owen, D. L. (2007). Corporate social reporting andstakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting,Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 649–667.

Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How corporate social responsibility is defined: Ananalysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.

Davis, G. F., & McAdam, D. (2000). Corporations, classes and socialmovements after managerialism. Research in Organizational Behavior,22, 195–238.

Davis, G. F., & Thompson, T. A. (1994). A social movement perspective oncorporate control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 141–173.

Day, R. M., & Arnold, M. B. (1998). The business case for sustainabledevelopment. GMI, 23(Autumn), 69–92.

Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporatesocial and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997: A testof legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,15(3), 312–343.


Dellheim, C. (1987). The creation of a company culture: Cadburys, 1861–1931. The American Historical Review, 92(1), 13–44.

Dicken, P. (2003). Global shift: Reshaping the global economic map in the21st century. New York: The Guilford Press.

Donnachie, I. (2000). Robert Owen: Owen of New Lanark and New Harmony.Scotland: Tuckwell Press.

Dunning, J. H. (1983). Market power of the firm and international transferof technology. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1,333–351.

Dunning, J. H., & Archer, H. (1987). The eclectic paradigm and the growthof UK multinational enterprise 1870–1983. Business and EconomicHistory, 16, 19–49.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporatesustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130–141.

Easterlin, R. A. (2000). The worldwide standard of living since 1800. TheJournal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 7–26.

Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizationallearning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87.

Edmonds, E. V., & Pavcnik, N. (2005). Child labour in the global economy.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 199–220.

Emerson, T. L. N., & McKinney, J. A. (2010). Importance of religious beliefsto ethical attitudes in business. Journal of Religion and Business Ethics,1(2). <http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol1/iss2/>.

Engels, F. (1892). The condition of the working class in 1844. London: SwanSonnenschein & Co.

Entine, J. (2003). The myth of social investing. Organization andEnvironment, 16(3), 352–368.

Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2007). Innovation, growth and economicdevelopment: Have the conditions for catchup changed? InternationalJournal for Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 1(1),13–33.

Fernando, M., & Jackson, B. (2006). The influence of religion-basedworkplace spirituality on business leaders’ decision-making: Aninter-faith study. Journal of Management & Organization, 12(1),23–39.

Fieldhouse, D. K. (1978). Unilever overseas: The anatomy of a multinational,1895–1965. CA: Hoover Institution Press.

Filson, F. V. (1977). A commentary on the gospel according to St Matthew.London: Adam and Charles Black.

Fleischman, R., & Parker, L. D. (1990). Managerial accounting early in thebritish industrial revolution: The Carron company, a case study.Accounting and Business Research, 20(79), 211–221.

Fleischman, R. K., & Tyson, T. N. (1997). Archival researchers: Anendangered species? The Accounting Historians Journal, 24, 91–109.

Frederick, W. C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business and Society, 33(2), 150–164.

Fry, R. E. (1995). Accountability in organizational life: Problem oropportunity for nonprofits? Nonprofit Management and Leadership,6(2), 181–195.

Frynas, J. G. (2005). International Affairs, 81(3), 581–598.Fung, A., O’Rourke, D., & Sable, C. F. (2001). Can we put an end to

sweatshops ? a new democracy forum on raising global labor standards.Boston: Beacon Press.

Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (1993). Approaching corporate accountability:Fragments from the past. Accounting and Business Research, 23(91A),320–330.

Gardiner, A. G. (1923). Life of George Cadbury. London: Cassell andCompany.

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

Gaskell, M. (1979). Model industrial villages in S. Yorkshire/N. Derbyshireand the early town planning movement. Town Planning Review, 50(4),437–458.

Geva, A. (2008). Three models of corporate social responsibility:Interrelationships between theory, research and practice. Businessand Society Review, 113(1), 1–41.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Allen

Lane.Gospell, H. (2007). The management of labor and human resources. In G.

Jones & J. Zeitlin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business history(pp. 420–446). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gourvish, T. R. (1987). British business and the transition to a corporateeconomy: entrepreneurship and management structures. BusinessHistory, 29(4), 18–45.

Gray, R. (2002). The social accounting project and accountingorganizations and society: Privileging engagement, imaginings, newaccountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizationsand Society, 27, 687–708.


































































































http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol1/iss2/



























































Grant, T. (2003). International directory of company histories (Vol. 52).Chicago, Ill.: St. James Press.

Hagner, D. A. (1993). World biblical commentary (Vol. 33A). Matthew 1–13. Waco Texas: World Books.

Haley, U. C. V. (1991). Corporate contributions as managerial masques:Reframing corporate contributions as strategies to influence society.Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 485–509.

Hamann, H. P. (1975). Faith and works. Paul and James. LutheranTheological Journal, 9, 33–41.

Hanlon, G. (2008). Rethinking corporate social responsibility and the roleof the firm – On the denial of politics. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D.Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporatesocial responsibility (pp. 156–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harrington, D. J. (1991). The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina Series) (Vol.1). Minneapolis: The Liturgical Press.

Harrison, J. F. C. (1967). The steam engine of the new moral world:Owenism and education, 1817–1829. The Journal of British Studies,6(2), 76–98.

Harrison, F. J. C. (1968). Utopianism and education: Robert Owen and TheOwenites. Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press.

Harrison, J. F. C. (1969a). Quest for the new moral world: Robert Owen andThe Owenites in Britain and America. New York: Charles Scribner’sSons.

Harrison, J. F. C. (1969b). Robert Owen and The Owenites in Britain andAmerica: The quest for the new moral world. London: Routledge andKegan Paul.

Harvey, R. H. (1949). Robert Owen: Social idealist. Berkeley and LosAngeles, California: University of California Press.

Hastings, J., & Selbie, J. A. (1911). Encyclopedia of religion and ethics Part 6.New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Hemmingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal valuesas drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,50, 33–44.

Hemphill, T. A. (2004). Corporate citizenship: The case for a newcorporate governance model. Business and Society Review, 109(3),339–361.

Henderson, J., & Osborne, D. J. (2000). The oil palm in all our lives: Howthis came about. Endeavour, 24(2), 63–68.

Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W. (2002). The next wave of corporatecommunity involvement: Corporate social initiatives. CaliforniaManagement Review, 44(2), 110–125.

Holden, A., Funnell, W., & Oldroyd, D. (2009). Accounting and the moraleconomy of illness in Victorian England: The Newcastle infirmary.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(4), 525–552.

Hyman, R. (1995). The historical evolution of British industrial relations.In P. Edwards (Ed.), Industrial relations: Theory and practice in Britain(pp. 27–49). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Idowu, S. O. (2011). An exploratory study of the historical landscape ofcorporate social responsibility in the UK. Corporate Governance, 11(2),149–160.

ILO (2008). Child labour: Causes. International Labour Organization DWTand Country Office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. <http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/moscow/areas/ipec/causes.htm>.

Infed (2006). Education in Robert Owen’s New Society: The New LanarkInstitute and Schools. <www.infed.org/thinkers/et-owen.htm>Accessed 2008–2010.

Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Jayasinghe, K., & Soobaroyen, T. (2009). Religious ‘‘Spirit’’ and peoples’perceptions of accountability in Hindu and Buddhist religiousorganizations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(7),997–1028.

Jeremy, D. J. (1984). Dictionary of business biography (Vol. 1). London:Butterworths.

Jenkins, C. R. (2002). Faith and works in Paul and James. Bibliotheca Sacra,159, 62–78.

Jeremy, D. J., & Shaw, C. (1985). Dictionary of business biography (Vol. 3).London: Butterworths.

Jeremy, D. J., & Shaw, C. (1986). Dictionary of Business Biography (Vol. 5).London: Butterworths.

Jeremy, D. J. (1991). The enlightened paternalist in action: WilliamHesketh Lever at Port Sunlight Before 1914. Business History, 33(1),58–81.

Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study ofvalues, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 41(4), 297–311.

Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (1998). Religiousness and business ethics.Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 163–175.


Kidd, A. J. (1996). Philanthropy and the ‘Social History paradigm’. SocialHistory, 21(2), 180–192.

Kidwell, J. M., Stevens, R. E., & Bethke, A. L. (1987). Differences in ethicalperceptions between male and female managers. Journal of BusinessEthics, 6, 489–493.

Kreander, N., McPhail, K., & Molyneaux, D. (2004). God’s fund managers: Acritical study of stock market investment practices of the Church ofEngland and UK methodists. Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal, 17(3), 408–441.

Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2007). Business and society: Stakeholderrelations, ethics and public policy. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Lertzman, D. A., & Vredenburg, H. (2005). Indigenous peoples, resourceextraction and sustainable development: An ethical approach. Journalof Business Ethics, 56, 239–254.

Leverhulme, W. H. L. (1919). The six hour day and other industrial questions.London: Allen and Unwin.

Llewellyn, S. (2007). Meeting responsibilities ‘On the Stage’ and claimingrights ‘Behind the Scenes’: The recasting of companies. In C. Carter, S.Clegg, M. Kornberger, S. Laske, & M. Messner (Eds.), Business ethics aspractice: Representation, reflexivity and performance (pp. 128–149).Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (2004). Religiousintensity, evangelical Christianity, and business ethics: An empiricalstudy. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 373–386.

Macqueen, A. (2005). The king of sunlight: How William Leaver cleaned upthe world. London: Random House.

Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility inEurope and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations.Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.

Malsch, B. (2013). Politicizing the expertise of the accounting industry inthe realm of corporate social responsibility. Accounting Organizationsand Society, 38(2), 149–168.

Marinetto, M. (1999). The historical development of businessphilanthropy: Social responsibility in the new corporate economy.Business History, 41(4), 1–20.

Marwick, W. H. (1924). The cotton industry and the industrial revolutionin Scotland. The Scottish Historical Review, 21(83), 207–218.

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘‘Implicit’’ and ‘‘Explicit’’ CSR: A conceptualframework for a comparative understanding of corporate socialresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

McAlister, D. T., & Ferrell, L. (2002). The role of strategic philanthropyin marketing strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6),689–705.

McCabe, J. (1920). Life stories of famous men: Robert Owen. London: Wattsand Co.

McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial leather: Race, gender and sexuality in thecolonial conquest. New York: Routledge.

Meakin, B. (1985). Model factories and villages. New York: GarlandPublishing Inc.

Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizationsand Society, 34(8), 918–938.

Mitchell, G. M. (1925). The English and Scottish cotton industries: A studyin interrelations. The Scottish Historical Review, 22(86), 101–114.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory ofstakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of whoand what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4),853–886.

Morton, A. L. (1962). The life and ideas of Robert Owen. London: Lawrenceand Wishart.

Murphy, P. E., & Enderle, G. (1995). Managerial ethical leadership:Examples do matter. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 117–128.

Nichol, W. (1975). Faith and works in the letter of James. In W. Nichol(Ed.), Essays on the general epistles of the new testament. Pretoria:NTWSA.

Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning aspedagogy: Lamguage and control in a changing institutional field.Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 257–292.

Oakes, L. S., & Young, J. J. (2008). Accountability re-examined: Evidencefrom hull house. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(6),765–790.

O’Brien, P., Griffiths, T., & Hunt, P. (1991). Political components of theindustrial revolution: Parliament and the English cotton textileindustry, 1660–1774. Economic History Review, 44(3), 395–423.

O’Dwyer, B. (2002). Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure:An Irish story. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3),406–436.

O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: Thenature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal, 16(4), 523–557.


















































http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/moscow/areas/ipec/causes.htm



http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-owen.htm








































































































Ogden, S. M. (1972). What is theology? The Journal of Religion, 52(1),22–40.

Parker, L. D. (2004). Presenting the past: Perspectives on time foraccounting history. Accounting, Business and Financial History, 14(1),1–27.

Parker, L. D., & Lewis, N. R. (1995). Classical management control incontemporary management and accounting: The persistence ofTaylor and Fayol’s World. Accounting, Business and Financial History,5(2), 211–235.

Parker, M. St. J., & Reid, D. J. (1972). The British revolution 1750–1970: Asocial and economic history. London: Blandford Press.

Pelling, H. (1974). Modern Britain: 1885–1955 (Cardinal ed.). Gray’s InnRoad, London: Sphere Books.

PHILTAR – Philosophy, Theology and Religion (2010). General essay onEnglish Speaking Protestantism – Congregationalism. Overview ofWorld Religions. University of Cumbria: Division of Religion andPhilosophy. <http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/esp/congreg.html> Accessed 2010 and 2011.

Plant, B. (2004). Christ’s autonomous hand: Simulations on the madnessof giving. Modern Theology, 20(4), 547–566.

Podmore, F. (1971). Robert Owen: A biography. New York: Haskell HousePublishers.

Pollard, S. (1964). The factory village in the industrial revolution. EnglishHistorical Review, 79(312), 513–531.

Pollard, S. (1965). The genesis of modern management. London: EdwardArnold.

Polyani, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economicorigins of our time. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporatephilanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 57–68.

Rainstrick, A. (1968). Quakers in science and industry: Being an account ofthe Quaker contributions to science and industry during the 17th and18th centuries. Newton Abbot, Great Britain: David & Charles.

Rama, M. (2001). Globalization and workers in developing countries. InManaging globalization. Washington, DC: The World BankDevelopment Research Group.

Reynolds, J. (1983). The great paternalist: Titus Salt and the growth ofnineteenth century Bradford. London: Maurice Temple Smith.

Roberts, J. (1991). The possibilities of accountability. Accounting,Organizations and Society, 16(4), 355–368.

Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social disclosure: Anapplication of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations andSociety, 17(6), 595–612.

Roberts (2003). The manufacture of corporate social responsibility:Constructing corporate sensibility. Organization, 10(2), 249–265.

Roberts (2009). No one is perfect: The limits of transparency and en ethicfor ‘Intelligent’ accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society,34, 957–970.

Roberts, J., & Scapens, R. (1985). Accounting systems and systems ofaccountability: Understanding accounting practices in theirorganisational contexts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(4),443–456.

Robertson, E., Korczynski, M., & Pickering, M. (2007). Harmoniousrelations? Music at work in the Rowntree and Cadbury factories.Business History, 49(2), 211–234.

Robertson, A. J. (1971). Robert Owen, Cotton Spinner: New Lanark. In S.Pollard & J. Salt (Eds.), Robert Owen, prophet of the poor: Essays inhonour of the two hundredth anniversary of his birth (pp. 1800–1825).London: The MacMillan Press Ltd.

Rogers, T. B. (1931). A century of progress, 1831–1931: Cadbury, Bournville.London: Hudson and Kearns.

Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy asstrategy: When corporate charity ‘‘Begins at Home’’. Business &Society, 42(2), 169–201.

Sanchez (2000). Motives for corporate philanthropy in El Salvador:Altruism and political legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 27,363–375.

Sargant, W. L. (1860/1971). Robert Owen and his social philosophy. NewYork: AMS Press Inc.

Sargeant, A. (2011). Lever, lifebuoy and ivory. Early Popular Visual Culture,9(1), 37–55.

Schreiner, T. R. (2009). An old perspective on the new perspective.Concordia Journal, 35(2), 140–155.

Schwartz, M. S. (2006). God as a managerial stakeholder? Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 66(2/3), 291–306.

Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Athree-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.


Schweiker, W. (1993). Accounting for ourselves: Accounting practice andthe discourse of ethics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(2–3),231–252.

Seed, J. (1993). Capital and class formation in early industrial England.Social History, 18(1), 17–30.

Sharfman, M. P., Pinkston, T. S., & Sigerstad, T. D. (2000). The effects ofmanagerial values on social issues evaluation: An empiricalexamination. Business and Society, 39(2), 144–182.

Shearer, T. (2002). Ethics and accountability: From the for-itself to the for-the-other. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 541–573.

Shenkin, M., & Coulson, A. B. (2007). Accountability through activism:Learning from Bourdieu. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,20(2), 297–317.

Silver, H. (1969). Robert Owen on education: Selections edited with anintroduction and notes by Harold Silver. London: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms anddiscourses. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 219–237.

Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility? Whether or how?California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.

Smith, C., Child, J., & Rowlinson, M. (1990). Reshaping work: The Cadburyexperience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spence, C. (2007). Social and environmental reporting and hegemonicdiscourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(6),855–882.

Szirmai, A. (2009). Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developingcountries; 1950–2005. Maastricht, The Netherlands: United NationsUniversity, UNU-MERIT, Working Paper Series #2009-010.

Tarlow, S. (2002). Excavating utopia: Why archaeologists should study‘‘Ideal’’ communities of the nineteenth century. International Journalof Historical Archaeology, 6(4), 299–323.

Terpstra, D. E., Rozell, E. J., & Robinson, R. K. (1993). The influence ofpersonality and demographic variables on ethical decisions related toinsider trading. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 375–389.

The National Archives (2004). Robert Owen. <www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRowen.htm> Retrieved 2008–2010.

Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2007). The business case for regulation ofcorporate social responsibility and accountability. Accounting Forum,31, 332–353.

UNIDO (2009). Breaking in and moving up: New industrial challenges for thebottom billion and the middle-income countries. United NationsIndustrial Development Organization, Industrial DevelopmentReport, 2009. <http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/IDR_2009_print.PDF>.

Valor, C. (2006). Why do managers give? Applying pro-social behaviourtheory to understanding firm giving. International Review on Publicand Non Profit Marketing, 3(1), 17–28.

Ven, V. D. B., & Graafland, J. J. (2006). Strategic and moral motivation forcorporate social responsibility. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRAPaper No. 20278. <http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20278/>.

Wagner, G. (1987). The chocolate conscience. London: Chatto and Windus.Wan- Jan, W. S. (2006). Defining corporate social responsibility. Journal of

Public Affairs, 6, 176–184.Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in

organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy ofManagement Review, 27(1), 77–97.

Werner, A. (2008). The influence of Christian identity on SME owner–managers’ conceptualisations of business practice. Journal of BusinessEthics, 82(2), 449–462.

Williams, I. A. (1931). The firm of Cadbury: 1831–1931. London: Constableand Co. Ltd.

Wilson, C. (1954). History of Unilever. London: Cassell and Co.Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key

approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114.Witzel, M. (2003a). Fifty key figures in management. London: Routledge.Witzel, M. (2003b). Socialist entrepreneurs. European business. Forum, 16,

82–85.Wong, H. M. (2007). Religiousness, love of money, and ethical attitudes of

Malaysian evangelical Christians in business. Journal of Business Ethics,81, 169–191.

Woodward, D. (1981). Wage rates and living standards in pre-industrialEngland. Past and Present, 91, 28–46.

Wulfson, M. (2001). The ethics of corporate social responsibility andphilanthropic ventures. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 135–145.

Zaret, D. (1992). Covenant theology and the weber thesis. The BritishJournal of Sociology, 43(3), 369–391.













http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/esp/congreg.html

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/esp/congreg.html






















































































http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRowen.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRowen.htm




http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/IDR_2009_print.PDF

http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/IDR_2009_print.PDF




http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20278/




























corporate social accountability through action: contemporary insights from british industrial...

Documents