ABSTRACT
ANALYTIC CHALLENGES ...... 415 3. TAXONOMIC CATEGORIES
OFTHENEWCSR .............. 416 3 .1. Individual Finn Endeavors . . . . . 41 7 3.2. Firm-NGO Partnerships ....... 420 3.3. Public-Private Partnerships .... 420 3.4. Information Approaches ....... 421 3.5. Environmentall\1anagement
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 3.6. Industry Association Codes
of Conduct..................... 423 3.7. Nonstatel\1arket-Driven
(Private-Sector Hard Law) ...... 424
4. WHY FIRMS SUPPORT CSR: THE BENEFITS OF REFINED CLASSIFICATION ............... 425
5. TOWARD AN EVOLUTIONARY SENSITIVE CSR PROJECT ...... 426 5.1. The Evolutionary Logic
and the Conundrum ............ 427 5.2. Phase I: Initiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 8 5.3. Phase II: Gaining Widespread
In the past 15 years, an array of stakeholders have turned to firms, rather than governments, to address enduring environmental problems including forest degradation, fisheries depletion, mining destruction, and even climate change, as well as social problems including workers' and human rights. A, a result, a wide range of tactics, including boycott campaigns, social and ecolabeling, and environmental certification, have been used to appeal directly to firms to improve their environmental management procedures and performance as well as their treatment of workers and the impacts of their activities in the communities in which they operate. These efforts to pro-
mote what is generally known as corporate social responsibility (CSR) (1) have increasingly attracted the interest of a wide range of scholars within political science, economics, sociology, anthropology, and geography.
