We propose a new conceptualization to make sense of the vast and diverse body of work regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR): (a) embedded CSR and (b) peripheral CSR. This distinction relies on psychological foundations originating primarily in industrial–organizational psychology and related fields (i.e., organizational behavior, human resource management) and allows for a better understanding of when and why CSR is likely to lead to positive outcomes for employees, organizations, and society. Embedded CSR involves an organization's core competencies and integrates CSR within a firm's strategy, routines, and operations, and therefore affects all employees. In contrast, peripheral CSR focuses on activities that are not integrated into an organization's strategy, routines, and operations (e.g., philanthropy, volunteering). We use our conceptualization to explain the success of CSR initiatives at GE, IBM, and Intel, and to reinterpret the scholarly CSR literature in the fields of marketing, corporate governance and legal studies, and economics. We also describe how our conceptualization can help bridge the much lamented micro–macro and science–practice gaps and helps guide future CSR research as well as organizational interventions.

This response is being written primarily from the perspective of the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and insights derived from extensive interactions with its members. This enables a different perspective on the focal article by Aguinis and Glavas (2013) than one primarily based on macro/micro distinctions in academic scholarship.

Aguinis and Glavas (2013) ask, “When and why does CSR lead to positive outcomes for employees, organizations, and society?” Although the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is elusive and comprises a wide range of definitions, there is convergence on the voluntary nature of these actions. But who implements these voluntary initiatives? CSR will take effect, as Aguinis and Glavas point out, at micro levels, through the actions of lower-level units and employees. Thus, there is a need to specify mechanisms by which macro-level CSR policies result in microlevel outcomes.

We agree with Aguinis and Glavas's (2013) conceptualization of embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility (CSR). Our concern is whether GE, Intel, and IBM are the best examples of companies with embedded CSR. We propose a more systematic identification of companies with embedded company-wide CSR. A source of exemplars may be aided in drawing upon companies that meet the criteria of “B Corps” or organize as “Benefit Corporations.” Patagonia and New Belgium Brewing Company are provided as examples of “B Corp” companies that utilize core competencies to create company-wide embedded CSR.

My purpose here is to suggest that the often-overlooked organizational ombudsman (OO) role can and should become an influential component of embedded corporate social responsibility (CSR) processes as defined by Aguinis and Glavas (2013). An OO is an employee who works with individuals and groups to help resolve conflicts inside or outside of an organization and who brings systemic concerns to the attention of organizational leadership (Howard, 2010). An OO does this while maintaining the confidentiality of office visitors, operating from a stance of neutrality and impartiality, remaining independent of formal organizational structures, and not adjudicating disputes or otherwise making policy recommendations regarding conflicts (International Ombudsman Association, 2013; Ziegenfuss & O'Rourke, 2011).

The field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology has and will continue to experience periods of growth and change. Our field has shifted and transformed along with society, through the industrial revolution, the human relations movement, the globalization of business, and the information age. And here we are, in 2013, at the cusp of what seems to be the beginning of a new stage in our development, this time evidenced by the marked attention that both the science and practice arms of I–O psychology are placing on issues of corporate social responsibility (CSR, Aguinis, 2011; Cruse, 2010; Scott et al. 2013)

Although we support the primary embedded–peripheral categorization proposed by the focal article authors, (Aguinis & Glavas, 2013), in this commentary, we explore the implications of privileging embedded over peripheral corporate social responsibility (CSR) and identify benefits of the latter that we believe have been overlooked or underplayed. The benefits of peripheral CSR that we outline below can, in fact, contribute substantially to overall CSR efforts over and above those of embedded CSR.

Aguinis and Glavas (2013) offer a new attempt to explain the consistently weak but consistently inconsistent findings regarding the relationship of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to financial performance. Like many others writing in the field, Aguinis and Glavas appear to believe that further efforts to categorize types of CSR will somehow identify CSR forms that are financially rewarding. In this response, I challenge four assumptions underlying the Aguinis and Glavas manuscript: (a) that CSR has received little attention in the micro literature; (b) that CSR can be meaningfully conceptualized and operationalized; (c) that a continued search for the “holy grail” of a CSR–financial performance link is likely to be fruitful; and (d) that the “peripheral–embedded” distinction is useful and appropriate.

Aguinis and Glavas (2013) provide a framework for understanding corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs and their outcomes. They suggest that embedding CSR within the strategy and everyday practices of an organization will help employees find meaning and purpose in their work. However, successfully implementing a large-scale organizational change—such as embedding CSR in all aspects of strategy and day-to-day business practices—brings many challenges. For example, in order for organizational change initiatives to succeed, organizational members must buy into the change, those at the top must drive the change, organizational members must be held accountable for implementing the change, and rewards should be tied to the behaviors that align with the change (Austin & Bartunek, 2003). In this article, we will expand upon Aguinis and Glavas to provide recommendations of how to uncover a shared purpose to inform CSR initiatives. Herein we provide recommendations for how to increase the likelihood of success when embedding CSR by first achieving the necessary understanding of what drives the organizational members' purpose and meaning before implementing the change.

The idea of embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility (CSR) proposed by Aguinis and Glavas (2013) appears to be very intuitive and functional. After all, who can on face deny the argument that CSR will have the maximum positive outcomes when it is not just an add-on but is thoroughly integrated into the strategies, routines, and operations of the business? However, on closer inspection, there appear to be several problems with the embedded–peripheral dichotomy. Three major ambiguities of the embedded–peripheral dichotomy are focused on in this commentary. The first lies in the potential for significant ambiguity in whether a company falls in one category or the other based on how the totality of the organization's operations and functions are categorized. A company can have CSR built into their operations and strategies for part of their business (embedded) while have them not be built into their operations for different aspects of the operations or product strategies. The second ambiguity area is how CSR actions get defined as peripheral or embedded that does fit well with the actual importance level of the action to the organization. We look at an organization example (TOM Shoes) where peripheral CSR actions have significant impact on organizational success.

In their focal article, Aguinis and Glavas (2013) emphasize that despite a growing body of research, the conditions facilitating positive effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) remain unclear. In regard to this issue, empirical studies have thus far produced inconsistent and equivocal results (for an overview, see Margolis & Walsh, 2003). Aguinis and Glavas introduce the difference between embedded and peripheral CSR as a key differentiation to explain why and when CSR is more likely to lead to positive outcomes. Specifically, they argue that CSR is more likely to lead to positive outcomes if it is embedded and consequently related to an organization's core competencies and integrated within a firm's strategy, routines, and operations. The idea of embedded CSR being more likely to lead to positive outcomes is compatible with, for instance, the notion of “shared value” (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

For decades I tracked and filed information from many different sources on corporate wrongdoing, both the unethical but legal kind (all wrongdoing is unethical and some of the worst of it is made legal by a subservient government) and the illegal kind. After I retired as an industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologist I expanded substantially my archival research and eventually wrote two books that are very pertinent here.

Although nearly 50 years have passed since the Civil Rights Act, employment discrimination persists. Thus, this focal article raises and addresses critical issues regarding a yet unanswered question: how can organizational researchers and practitioners contribute to the ultimate goal of eradicating employment discrimination? This article will push previous work a step forward by considering discrimination reduction tactics spanning the attraction, selection, inclusion, and retention phases of the employment cycle. Additionally, we expand our discussion of strategies to reduce discrimination beyond classically studied racial, ethnic, and gender differences. Our synthesis of this literature will inform organizational psychologists on how to address discrimination, but will also highlight the lack of evidence regarding important aspects of these strategies.