RESPONSE - Insead

A model of cognitive alignment and social performance The RESPONSE model
Recent research distinguishes integrated and decoupled CSR practices within
organisations (Weaver, Trevino and Cochran, 1999). To our knowledge, however, no
linkage has been shown between the nature of a firm’s CSR practices and its
managers’ sensitivity to stakeholder demands.
c. Other factors that affect the potential for cognitive alignment include the structure of the
business and location of accountability within that structure. A decentralised subsidiary
that is accustomed to tailoring products and services to the needs of local customers
might enjoy relative autonomy to similarly tailor its CSR initiatives. However, it may be
relatively unreceptive to centralised CSR policies if responsibility for the consequences
is deemed to lie with headquarters.
Specific hypotheses are developed and tested in Chapters 4­6, where, based on the literature, we
predict that cognitive alignment is positively associated with social performance. We also detail the
external and internal factors that are expected to drive cognitive alignment, and compare our findings
against these hypotheses.
2.2 The RESPONSE model
Figure 2 shows the
RESPONSE model for
explaining variance
between firms in terms of
their cognitive alignment and
CSR performance. Although
other linkages and causalities
exist – such as the impact of
cognitive misalignment on firm
motivation ­ this conceptual
model is limited to the focus of
analysis in the interests of
clarity. Each component of the
model is described in Table 2
on the following page.
Figure 2: The RESPONSE model
The left­hand column shows the three levels of analysis encompassed by the two studies: the external
environment, the firm itself and the psychological characteristics of individual managers. External
conditions include the legal and regulatory environment, societal pressure, political trends and myriad
other factors beyond the firm’s immediate control. Firm factors include the company’s business
strategy, its ability to manage knowledge, and so on, excluding factors directly related to CSR. The
box labelled ‘CSR process’ represents the commitment, structure, and initiatives that the firm
demonstrates and implements in support of its CSR objectives.
For example, CSR commitment may be expressed in the company’s mission statement, in the time
dedicated to the subject by top management, or the integration of CSR concerns into strategic
business decisions. Structure refers to the evolution and location of responsibility for CSR within the
firm; does a centralised department exist, if so how close is it to senior management, or is
responsibility delegated elsewhere? CSR initiatives are specific programmes and activities designed
to achieve stated objectives and oriented either to external audiences (communication, philanthropic
efforts, etc.) or towards internal processes and the development of CSR­specific capacity – CSR
training programmes, changes in resource allocation and staff appraisal processes, for instance.
RESPONSE: understanding and responding to societal demands on corporate responsibility
20