IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v86y2023ipas0301420723009121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and cognitive bias: A systematic review and research direction

Author

Listed:
  • Erdiaw-Kwasie, Michael Odei
  • Abunyewah, Matthew
  • Baah, Charles

Abstract

Corporate Social Responsibility's (CSR) competitive advantage continues to disappear rapidly due to embedded gaps in practice. Thus, managers and scholars are beginning to shift their focus from the business case of CSR toward how firms address weaknesses within CSR practices. This study reveals the prevalence and influence of different cognitive bias types in CSR formulation, implementation, and communication. In this paper, CSR formulation emerged as the domain more predisposed to cognitive biases, followed by CSR implementation and CSR communication with 12, 9, and 5 cognitive bias types, respectively. Based on a systematic review, we provide a conceptual framework that discusses CSR cognitive bias' antecedents, indicator taxonomy, context, and consequences on partnerships. Following that, we identify the major implications for strategy theory and discuss possible future research areas to address.

Suggested Citation

  • Erdiaw-Kwasie, Michael Odei & Abunyewah, Matthew & Baah, Charles, 2023. "Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and cognitive bias: A systematic review and research direction," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(PA).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:86:y:2023:i:pa:s0301420723009121
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420723009121
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104201?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:86:y:2023:i:pa:s0301420723009121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.