zoos and aquariums

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study is to explore the perceptions and experiences of Pacific Northwest zoo and aquarium leaders regarding
barriers to achieving carbon neutrality, and the financial impacts to achieving carbon neutrality. Research to understand why accredited zoos and aquariums are not
achieving a carbon neutral status has not been formally studied and therefore is not understood. This literature review summarizes and synthesizes the existing
research findings related corporate social responsibility as concept, a theory, and in application. In addition, this Literature review discussed some of the success,
challenges, and opportunities of achieving a carbon neutral status. The categories selected were chosen to demonstrate the complexities corporate social responsibility
and how applying the theory to achieving a carbon neutral might help to better understand and apply lessons learned to zoos and aquariums. The literature review
focuses on ??? subcategories: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) The XXX subsection topics were chosen as they provide the most comprehensive review of the current status of
corporate social responsibility, and best highlight the obstacles faced in becoming carbon neutral. The in-depth research combined with insight gained directly from
querying the leadership of said organizations will provide some potential answers on moving towards becoming carbon neutral.
Documentation
The literature search strategy used was a key word search in various library databases. Some of the key words searched included: corporate social responsibility, zoos
and aquariums, carbon footprints, climate change, conservation education, and carbon neutral zoos and aquariums. The Northcentral University library databases
utilized for the search included: EBSCOHost, ProQuest, and SAGE Journals Online. The key word searches returned numerous scholarly articles, which revealed several
studies specific to conservation education, carbon footprint reduction, and green buildings. References from selected articles led the researcher to other supporting
studies, which were useful in the formation of an annotated bibliography. The literature for the current study was obtained from peer-reviewed publications, along
with articles collected as a result from keyword searches of the Northcentral University’s library databases. The literature collected was reviewed carefully and
compared to other existing studies in order to inform the current study. Government publications specific to climate change and mitigating efforts were also used as
resources.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate social responsibility is a self-guided theory utilized by organizations to help corporate cultures embrace social responsibility for the ultimate purpose of
achieving a positive impact. As such, corporate social responsibility has the potential to be a major contributor in the carbon reduction efforts on a larger scale to
complement the work being done at accredited zoos and aquariums. Ables and Martelli (2012) examined the stakeholder model as an emerging trend in corporate social
responsibility by connecting corporate performance to financial indicators as well as social, ethical, and environmental indicators. Their research found that
stakeholders are becoming increasingly just as concerned with social, ethical, and environmental issues are they are with financial returns on investments. Connecting
performance with environmental indicators represents awareness and a call for action among investors about sustainable business practices.
Dilling (2011) discussed the increased attention that companies, their stakeholders, and fellow researchers are giving to corporate social responsibility. The focus
of Dilling’s (2011) work was to understand the causes and implications of corporate social responsibility as it related to perception. Dilling (2011) explored the link
between corporate social responsibility and stakeholder perception. His study uncovered a significant influence on corporate social responsibility perception by
stakeholders, citing that the age of a corporation and levels of community involvement, cultural awareness, and diversity are the key underlying factors. Dilling’s
(2011) research found that perception could be just as important as action for institutions that are attempting to create change, as that change relates to issues
surrounding carbon neutrality. Hence, zoos and aquariums need to be equally mindful about taking action along with the power of perception as both have an impact of
stakeholder decisions. However, opposing views would argue that the primary responsibility of any organization should be to the mission of the organization. “The first
social responsibility of the business is to make a profit sufficient to cover operational costs in the future” (Drucker, 2010 p. 44). Drucker’s assertion means that
mission, above all else, would take the place of perception and social issues noted by Dilling, (2011) and Ables, and Martelli (2012). Conflicting views on what
corporate social responsibility means is a factor.
As with the measuring of carbon output, there is debate regarding the lack of standards established to assess corporate social responsibility. Narayan et al. (2012)
addressed the need to standardize what corporate social responsibility means in terms that can be applied to a global economy. Corporate social responsibility has and
is continuing to gain a large amount of interest among academicians and business organizations, according to Narayan et al. (2012). Their research discussed the need
to define what corporate social responsibility actually is and what it means to be engaged in such activities.
The central idea of defining what it means to engage in corporate social responsibility is not a recent trend in literature. A clear definition of corporate social
responsibility is needed in order to be useful in explaining why accredited zoos and aquariums of the Pacific Northwest have not achieved a carbon neutral status; in
addition, it is needed to assist in defining carbon measurement as the two topics are interconnected—one cannot be accurate without the standardization of both.
However, examining corporate social responsibility as a stand-alone theory can be useful in helping shape a study fully explain why accredited zoos and aquariums of
the Pacific Northwest have not achieved a carbon neutral status
Scholarly Views on Theory
Corporate social responsibility has been studied with detail over the last 40 years. But, as demonstrated by Doshi and Khokle (2012), minimal attention has been given
to discussing the theoretical foundation of corporate social responsibility. To address the lack of literature on the theoretical foundations of corporate social
responsibility, Doshi and Khokle (2012) explored the institutional theory, which accounts for the process by which standards are formed as a social behavior, to help
explain corporate social responsibility. “Institutional theory is particularly well-equipped to explain organizational activities such as corporate social
responsibility primarily because, under institutional theory, the ‘field’ is given importance” (Doshi and Khokle, 2012, p. 98). The ‘field,’ as described by Doshi and
Khokle (2012), includes an organization’s activities, relationships, practices, and norms, both internal and external. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon and
should not be confused with a hypothesis, which is a specific and testable logic in a research study.
In a 2013 research study, Karam and Kamali argue that the institutional theory is one of the most comprehensive theoretical perspectives within the social sciences.
“It has become a popular framework for investigating the processes by which social behavior is maintained” (Karam & Jamali, 2013, p. 31). The theory attempts to
explain the constraints and incentive systems of a society, more commonly used within organizations, and categorizes human behavior, values, and social norms that
become institutionalized over time. Recently, institutional theory literature has “attempted to move beyond the over-emphasis on institutional stability to focus
instead on processes of change” (Karam & Jamali, 2013, p. 33). The evolution of the institutional theory from stability to a focus on the process of change creates a
minitheory. Specifically, Doshi and Khokle (2012) articulated in their research that corporate social responsibility is a minitheory with the institutional theory
definition. As explained by Gelso, “[m]initheories may be part of the broader system, or they may be theoretical statements that are separate from existing systems”
(Gelso, 2006, p. 5). The development of minitheories is more useful in the research process when working with undeveloped definitions and literature that allow the
researcher to make a final articulation of his or her data to explain a phenomenon. Specifically, minitheories provide a granular explanation of a phenomenon within
a broader system of theories and should not be mistaken for a paradigm, which is a way of ordering one’s world view.
Researchers Ables and Martelli proposed the stakeholder theory as an emerging trend in corporate social responsibility in a 2012 study. Their research connects
corporate performance to financial indicators as well as social, ethical, and environmental trends. Their empirical research proved that stakeholders are becoming just
as concerned with social, ethical, and environmental issues as they are with financial returns on investments. Additionally, Ables and Martelli (2012) highlighted the
complexity of the stakeholder model to support corporate social responsibility because it often includes multiple goals from shareholders and stakeholders alike. Using
empirical research and analysis, they found an indication that other variables, besides corporate social responsibility, tend to influence corporate performance
including scandals and poor ethical choices. Finding indications of influencing variables, Ables and Martelli (2012) provide further evidence of the struggle to define
corporate social responsibility.
The stakeholder theory as proposed by Harrison and Wicks in their 2013 study on value and firm performance provides a path for connecting ethics and strategy of firms
that serve the interests of a diverse population of stakeholders, creating more value over time. The stakeholder approach involves an analytical review of management
decisions and management’s various relationships to determine the appropriate amount of attention that needs to be devoted to stakeholders so superior performance is
achieved. The stakeholder theory is a broader system, which, according to Verbeke and Tung (2013), is valuable when applied at an organization’s birth. But Verbeke and
Tung found in their 2013 research that over time stakeholder preferences and priorities evolve, and his or her opinions may change based upon the current issues
relevant at a certain point. The central thesis of Verbeke and Tung’s (2013) work is that a firm’s relationship with its stakeholders evolves over time, and the
stakeholder theory applied in a broader system does not lead to sustaining a competitive advantage. Hence, Verbeke and Tung’s (2013) findings reveal that adaptability
is vital to success when applying stakeholder theory and support the assertion by Gelso (2006) for the need of minitheories, such as corporate social responsibility,
to support final articulation of data that will explain a phenomenon.
“Theories are better if they have greater explanatory power; are more suitable to empirical tests and modeling; are more “logical,” in the sense of coherence and
internal consistency, are capable of explaining more with less thereby inspiring new research” (Van Lange, 2013, p. 41). Theories that yield empirical discoveries are
theories that add to research and knowledge. Given the lack of literature defining what a corporate social responsibility definition should look like, any attempts to
further explain and define the phenomenon surrounding a corporate social responsibility definition will add knowledge that can be built upon. According to Narayan et
al. (2012), the concept of corporate social responsibility as a theory has seen a great deal of attention, but an agreement of what a true definition should look like
is still being debated. Narayan et al. (2012) research identifies challenges to creating a definition that can be linked to the different expectations of various
stakeholders and their standards across an organization. The different ideals among organizations and standard practices lead to a fragmented understanding of a
corporate social responsibility theory definition. Further research on corporate social responsibility with the modeling of other theories, such as the institutional
theory seen in Doshi and Khokle’s (2012) work, will build knowledge and add a deeper and richer meaning to corporate social responsibility as a theory.
Research by Abels and Martelli (2012) defines what corporate social responsibility is and what it means to the financial performance of a business. Using the
stakeholder model, Abels and Martelli’s (2012) research purpose was to connect corporate social responsibility, measured by an index for Corporate Governance Score, to
the influences on a company’s performance. Their study sample was the 500 largest business firms in the United States in 2008. Abels and Martelli (2012) justified
using the stakeholder approach because the stakeholder theory is designed to simplify the relationship between shareholders and management. Using a company’s Corporate
Governance Score – an assessment of a company’s corporate governance practices and policies – Abels and Martelli (2012) compared the score results with financial
performance to determine if a positive relationship existed. The dependent variable in Abels and Martelli’s (2012) research was the rate of return on assets and the
independent variable was the Corporate Governance Score of each firm. Abels and Martelli (2012) conclude that the Corporate Governance Score of a firm was not
statistically significant to firm performance as measured by rate of return on assets.
The findings in Abels and Martelli (2012) suggest that a company’s ethical behavior or corporate social responsibility activities do not have an impact on the
rate of return on assets. But their study only addressed the narrow scope of a company’s corporate governance practices, which is only one concept of corporate social
responsibility. Furthermore, by using the stakeholder model, the relationship only focuses on the shareholders and management. Corporate social responsibility in the
broadest sense is concerned with business and society, not just shareholders. Abels and Martelli’s (2012) research address one singular relationship, which was the
purpose, but other factors play a significant role in the connection between corporate social responsibility and the financial performance.
Research by Azhar and Tashfeen (2010) focuses on the issues that confront corporate social responsibility and its ability to be applied in developing
countries. The purpose of this research was to address the perspectives of corporate social responsibility and a firm’s performance when engaging in activities, and
understand new research directions needed for developing countries to enhance corporate social responsibility. The main research question was to determine if corporate
social responsibility was useful in developing countries. Azhar and Tashfeen (2010) examined three perspectives to answer the question of what makes a socially
responsible business. The perspectives were normative (what should be rather than what is), instrumental (if/then statements), and descriptive (use of theory to
describe a phenomena). Each perspective looked at a specific angle to determine if corporate social responsibility was useful in developing countries. Azhar and
Tashfeen (2010) conclude that normative and empirical perspectives need to be integrated, and the focal point must be placed on stakeholders. The lack of a
standardized definition of corporate social responsibility could be considered insufficient, depending on the definition perspective and how it is applied.
The findings in Azhar and Tashfeen’s (2010) research conclude that allocation of scarce resources in developing countries is critical in making decisions. The
need for further research to prioritize social problems to establish a link between corporate social responsibility and performance is discussed by Azhar and Tashfee,
but it will not be successful unless there is an aware and conscious public. Azhar and Tashfeen (2010) uncover the need for a better definition of corporate social
responsibility, and the need to communicate that definition and establish a link between a firm’s performance and corporate social responsibility in a developing
country. The significance of Azhar and Tashfeen’s (2010) research is important for furthering the cause of corporate social responsibility in a developing country.
Research by Karam and Jamali (2013) explores how business affects positive change through their corporate social responsibility activities. Their research used
the institutional theory as the framework to answer the question of how businesses serve as change agents by using corporate social responsibility activities in
addressing social development challenges. Specifically, they examine the role of corporate social responsibility in the Arab Middle East and its relationship around
developmental change supporting women. The institutional theory is used to understand the processes by which social behavior is maintained. Karam and Jamali’s (2013)
research examined the financial performance of businesses that placed Arab women at higher or equal importance to their male counterparts, and revealed an economic
loss for businesses that restrict women from employment in the formal economy. Karam and Jamali’s (2013) research went farther to explore why traditional assumptions
and beliefs of the Arab Middle East are challenged with allowing more women in the workforce. They discovered that Arab businesses are at a greater financial risk in a
global economy if women are not permitted to work.
The findings in Karam and Jamali’s (2013) research conclude that the corporate social responsibility activities of multinational corporations are the catalyst
for shifting the traditional assumptions and beliefs about women in the workforce. Legitimacy through the institutional theory is slowly shifting to the functional
efficiency of corporate social responsibility. Karam and Jamali (2013) provide a compelling case that corporate social responsibility is important, timely, and a
critical change agent that can expedite the acceptance of women into an Arab workforce. Although their study does not explain why corporate social responsibility
initiatives are becoming mainstream in the Arab Middle East, they note that as public expectations shift, the new forms behavior will become institutionalized. The
significance of Karam and Jamali’s (2013) research and the use of corporate social responsibility may imply how institutional norms develop, are shaped, maintained,
and eventually evolve.
A study by Richter (2010) explores two phenomena that characterize the mainstream debate on corporate social responsibility. The purpose of his research was to
develop a liberal philosophy about the ongoing debate of corporate social responsibility. The first phenomenon explored by Richter (2010), is the market economy
approach to corporate social responsibility. The market economy approach is widely accepted and used as a point of reference for analysis through descriptive,
instrumental, and normative approaches. Richter’s (2010) research assumes the market economy approach is only applicable when judged against established societal
expectations and norms. The second phenomenon explored by Richter (2010) is that corporate social responsibility literature and previous studies are closely related to
theory of the firm. Richter’s (2010) research implies that the two mainstream phenomena are directly linked to the assumptions of liberal democracy. Therefore,
corporate social responsibility can be judged only in a society with common values to hold legitimacy. In a liberal democracy the assumption of the rule of law and
normative behavior are the core foundations needed for corporate social responsibility to be applied.
The findings in Richter’s (2010) research conclude that accepting the liberal model of corporate social responsibility and its assumptions creates a broader a
world view. Ignoring the assumptions explored by Richter (2010) weakens the empirical analysis and threatens the theoretical groundwork of corporate social
responsibility and its ability to be applied in a global setting. Richter’s (2010) conclusion was that corporate social responsibility holds significant theoretical
value; but more research needs to be conducted to understand the theoretical implications in a globalizing world. The role of the firm will be important in positing a
business to transform the world system but will only occur when the underpinnings of the market economy approach are fully understood.
Research by Kemper and Martin (2010) explores the core set of theories that involve corporate social responsibility in the aftermath of the 2008 financial
crisis. The purpose of their research was to uncover the theoretical underpinnings of corporate social responsibility to prepare business and society for pending
ecological and geopolitical situations on a global scale. Through an empirical review, Kemper and Martin (2010) compared theory of the firm, management theory, span of
the firm, corporate strategy, and the model of the state to address why corporate social responsibility could not mitigate the risks associated with the 2008 financial
crisis. The foundation of corporate social responsibility is the relationship between business and society, therefore Kemper and Martin (2010) attempted to discover
why the crisis was not diverted, given the foundations of corporate social responsibility. Kemper and Martin (2010) examined the trend of deregulation and conducted a
linear forecast of the decreasing role of government in the regulation of business. They discovered that policy shifts to gain effective intervention in the
relationship between business and society are not a linear function as they originally assumed.
The findings in Kemper and Martin (2010) research conclude that contemporary concepts of corporate social responsibility have emerged and that corporate social
responsibility no longer fits into the post-managerial assumptions it was originally built on. Kemper and Martin (2010) found there are natural tensions between
corporate social responsibility and healthy financial performance. Using the narrow applications of theory of the firm, management theory, span of the firm, corporate
strategy, and the model of the state, Kemper and Martin (2010) discovered a firm’s equity is a measure of its worth and its existence. Kemper and Martin’s (2010)
research showed that there are very few rewards for business in a post-managerial, corporate social responsibility climate, and return on good deeds is smaller than
the investment. Kemper and Martin’s (2010) research discovered corporate social responsibility is fluid and lacks a core definition to judge activities against, but
that high reputations should equal higher expectations.
Corporate Social Responsibility as a Theory
An important component of a scholarly study according to Merriman (2012) is the determination of what theories may be used to explore the research question. A
theory is a set of interrelated variables formed into propositions that define the relationship between the variables. “Minitheories may be part of the broader
system, or they may be theoretical statements that are separate from existing systems” (Gelso, 2006, p. 5). The developments of minitheories are more useful in the
research process when working with undeveloped definitions and literature allowing the researcher to make a final articulation of their data to explain a phenomenon.
An example of the development of a minitheory can be found in research by Doshi and Khokle (2012), who support the use of corporate social responsibility theories as
an evolution of the institutional theory form stability to a focus on the process of change.
Ingrid and Donnalyn (2010) suggest that even though corporate social responsibility is still emerging and does not yet resemble a full theory on its own, it
can still “offer a significant contribution” (Ingrid & Donnalyn, 2010, p. 219). In an empirical study on the benefits of corporate social responsibility used as a
theory, Godfrey, Hatch, and Hansen (2012) discovered the need for a multifaceted approach. Godfrey et.al’s (2012) study supports Gleso’s (2006) assertion of
minitheories and is highlighted in the work of (Doshi & Khokle, 2009, 2012) and (Harrison & Wicks, 2013) that corporate social responsibility can be a minitheory of
the institutional and stakeholder theories. For corporate social responsibility to stand alone as a theory, research would need to consider specific interrelated
variables accounting only for an industry, matching contexts, and variables.
In a 2012 research study by Aguinis and Glavas on corporate social responsibility, they suggest most of what is known about corporate social responsibility
theories is fragmented, given that most of the research published only focuses on one level of analysis. The fragmentation of information concerning corporate social
responsibility theories is further compounded by the various theoretical frameworks used at each level to guide research. Research by Doshi and Khokle (2012) and
Harrison & Wicks (2013) are two examples of the fragmentation highlighted by Aguinis and Glavas (2012). Doshi and Khokle (2012) applied the institutional theory
framework to further evolve the corporate social responsibility theory. In Harrison and Wicks’s (2013) research they applied the stakeholder theory framework to
examine applications for a corporate social responsibility theory. Aguinis and Glavas’s (2012) research found that corporate social responsibility theory requires the
inclusion of variables from more than one level of analysis.
The corporate social responsibility theory is viewed as a controversial issue for most researchers because it has various contrasting definitions. Varying
terminology used in the corporate social responsibility theory was discussed by Dartey-Baah and Amponsah-Tawiah (2011), and leaves researchers with no universal
definition. Through a review of literature, it is clear that corporate social responsibility as a theory is under constant examination and is continually redefined to
meet current needs to solve a problem. But the fundamentals of what the corporate social responsibility is as a theory has remained the same. The corporate social
responsibility theory is concerned with the relationships of businesses with society and fits the definition of a theory as proposed by Merriman (2012), namely a set
of interrelated variables formed into propositions that define the relationship between the variable.
The most widely cited model of corporate social responsibility is Carroll’s four-part pyramid. A. B. Carroll (2010) designed the pyramid to contain four
categories of corporate responsibility in decreasing order of importance: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. Carroll’s corporate social responsibility model
has been validated in a number of studies since its conception. The corporate social responsibility theory allows the researcher to explain why rather than just what,
while maintaining flexibility to meet the changing needs of society and stakeholders. The corporate social responsibility theory also allows for the organization of
research data in a meaningful way that fosters the identification of phenomenon. The application of a good theory, such as the corporate social responsibility theory,
allows for the prediction of what may occur in a new situation. In addition, using the corporate social responsibility as a theory has the potential to discover new
phenomena or further refine the theory itself given its wide application and flexibility.
Application of Corporate Social Responsibility as a Theory
A 2008 study by Schwartz and Carroll examined the evolution of corporate social responsibility and compared it to business ethics, stakeholder management,
sustainability, and corporate citizenship frameworks to determine the effectiveness of the model. The theoretical justifications for corporate social responsibility
was determined by Schwartz and Carroll (2008) to be social contract, moral agency, social power, interpenetration, stakeholder, utilitarian, property-based, and
religious. Schwartz and Carroll (2008) further examined the core definition of value to determine if corporate social responsibility as it exists still provides value
when applied. Value is created when “business meets society’s needs by producing goods and services in an efficient manner while avoiding unnecessary negative
externalities” (Schwartz & Carroll, 2008, p. 168). By comparing closely related theories to determine their continued effectiveness, Schwartz and Carroll (2008)
concluded the corporate social responsibility theory is still effective in addressing the dynamic relationships between corporations and society. “Despite any possible
deficiencies with corporate social responsibility, it appears that the corporate social responsibility has a bright future because at its core, it addresses and
captures the most important concerns of the public regarding business and society relationships” (Schwartz & Carroll, 2008, p. 157).
Schwartz and Carroll’s (2008) study attempted to examine the correct fit of the corporate social responsibility theory, its effectiveness, and value. The central
research question was to determine if the corporate social responsibility theory is still an effective model that provides value toward an application. The research
results provided justification for using corporate social responsibility and asserted that the corporate social responsibility theory is very much appropriate for
examining relationships between corporations and society because it helps explain definitions, domain, relationships, and predictive claims as suggested by Wacker
(1998).
A study by Carroll and Shabana (2010) linked the use of the corporate social responsibility theory to a firm’s performance. Through researching a variety of
firms’ engagements related to their ethical and philanthropic responsibilities, Carroll and Shabana could determine that a positive link exists. What is interesting
about Carroll and Shabana’s research is that they only used the last two steps on the corporate social responsibility pyramid originally proposed by Carroll, by
incorporating the ethical and philanthropic steps, which also hold the least amount of importance in the pyramid. “The two categories of responsibilities capture and
embrace the essence of the concept of corporate social responsibility, especially for building the business case” (Carroll & Shabana, 2010, p. 85). As Carroll and
Shabana found in their 2010 research, this approach allows businesses to increase their competitive advantage, creating a win–win relationship with their stakeholders
while realizing gains from cost and risk reduction, creating legitimacy, and protecting their reputation. The wider application of the corporate social responsibility
theory acknowledges interrelated relationships, financial performance, and the values of society. Carroll and Shabana’s (2010) research demonstrated that the
corporate social responsibility theory pursues understanding a phenomenon between economic and social goals for a business.
Carroll and Shabana’s (2010) research used the corporate social responsibility theory to determine the relationship between a firm’s performance and their
ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. Although Carroll and Shabana did not apply the full pyramid of social responsibility, the research found that firms
engaging in ethical and philanthropic activities have stronger financial performances. The partial use of the theory, or perhaps a minitheory as suggested by Gelso
(2006), could provide enough evidence that a relationship does exist, allowing for application and practice to occur.
Based on a comparative analysis by Cerjan-Letica (2010), the pyramid of social responsibility originally published by Carroll in 1991 was used to develop a
pyramid specific to social responsibility for practitioners of dentistry in developing nations. Cerjan-Letica used the corporate social responsibility theory as a
starting point to explore the possibility of creating balance between dentistry as a business – i.e. a service provider of medicine and social responsibilities in the
dental community. The application of the theory is intended to establish a balance between business and professional interests in understanding of the situation.
Cerjan-Letica (2010) found that economic and financial insecurity forces most dentists to maximize revenue while ignoring the social connection. Cerjan-Letica’s (2010)
comparative analysis found it is possible to implement the corporate social responsibility theory in dentistry. But the research found that any application of
corporate social responsibility activities in dental medicine needs to be critical and creative and not mechanical. The findings in Cerjan-Letica’s (2010) study
illuminate what other researchers have echoed; the corporate social responsibility theory is flexible enough to meet the changing needs of society as it relates to
business. Cerjan-Letica’s (2010) research used generalization and methodology to uncover broad patterns of a situation and suggested possible applications and
practice, making a contribution to theory.
Cerjan-Letica’s comparative analysis used Carroll’s full pyramid of corporate social responsibility theory to understand social responsibilities in the dental
community. The use of the corporate social responsibility theory provided evidence that a social connection in the dental community is missing and suggests the need
for more social responsibility for practitioners of dentistry in developing nations. Using the full pyramid of corporate social responsibility theory, Cerjan-Letica
could understand the current connection between the dental community and social responsibility and provide recommendations. Cerjan-Letica’s (2010) research is
supported by Weiss and Kittikhoun’s (2011) study on how theories have a significant role, in that they identify broad patterns and conceptual frameworks to understand
a problem. Once a problem has been identified, options in practice can be created to solve a problem.
In a study by Chander (2011), the corporate social responsibility theory was applied to understand the relationship between the social connection and business
on a global stage. The study examined the relationship and responsibility companies that operate in environments in which ethical and philanthropic responsibilities do
not exist or are not enforced have. The study discovered a positive connection between the domestic performance of a firm and its engagement in ethical and
philanthropic responsibilities on a global level. Aguinis and Glavas’s (2012) supports the findings of Chander (2011), corporate social responsibility theory requires
the inclusion of variables from more than one level of analysis. The multilevel analysis proposed in research Chander, suggests the corporate social responsibility
theory is best suited to discover the relationships that exist and offer a framework that can guide business strategies by providing insights about the general rules
of behavior. Overall, on issues dealing with non-existent social or behavior norms in business, the corporate social responsibility theory is best suited to understand
the relationships between society and business.
Corporate Social Responsibility Within Institutional Theory
Corporate social responsibility has been studied in depth over the last 40 years, but minimal attention has been given to discussing the theoretical foundation of the
subject (Doshi & Khokle, 2012). To address the lack of literature on the theoretical foundations of corporate social responsibility, Doshi and Khokle (2012) explored
institutional theory, which accounts for the process by which standards are formed as a social behavior to help explain outcomes. The “institutional theory is
particularly well-equipped to explain organizational activities such as corporate social responsibility primarily because, under institutional theory, the ‘field’ is
given importance” (Doshi & Khokle, 2012, p. 98).
The field, as described by Doshi and Khokle (2012), includes an organization’s activities, relationships, practices, and norms, both internal and external. This
concept builds on the work by Wacker (1998) which argues that theory should have “four components: definitions, domain, relationships, and predictive claims to answer
the natural language questions of who, what, when, where, how, why, should, could and would” (Wacker, 1998, p. 364). Institutional theory used by Doshi and Khokle
(2012) to explain the theoretical foundation of corporate social responsibility concluded that corporate social responsibility is an outcome of various internal and
external institutional forces of the field.
In a 2013 research study, Karam and Kamali argued that institutional theory is one of the most comprehensive theoretical perspectives within the social sciences.
Institutional theory “has become a popular framework for investigating the processes by which social behavior is maintained” (Karam & Jamali, 2013, p. 31). The theory
attempted to explain the constraints and incentive systems of a society; specifically those most commonly used within organizations, and categorized human behavior,
values, and social norms that become institutionalized over time.
DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) research on institutional theory found that, over time, organizations in the same field will begin to take the shape of one another. The
process of taking on a like shape of a similar organization is known as institutional isomorphism. Institutional isomorphism is a process that occurs over time as
organizations become established, and can be very beneficial when attempting to share best practices. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) found that institutional isomorphism
occurs in an organization through normative isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism, and coercive isomorphism.
Normative isomorphism occurs through networking and job-specific functions such as training. This is the process of normally following best practices in an
organization that are often benchmarked with other like organizations. The end goal of normative isomorphism is to take an idea and improve upon it to gain the
competitive edge. Mimetic isomorphism is simply copying another organization and not improving the originally used ideas or concepts. Coercive isomorphism involves
force, such as government regulation, laws, and cultural shifts. Perhaps applying DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) institutional isomorphism findings within zoos and
aquariums can offer a roadmap to carbon neutrality. Institutional effects are relevant in explaining organizational structures and that theoretical integration is
possible. DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) study explores the relative importance of institutional variables that can be useful for zoos and aquariums.
Recently, institutional theory literature has “attempted to move beyond the over-emphasis on institutional stability to focus instead on processes of change” (Karam &
Jamali, 2013, p. 33). According to Doshi and Khokle (2012), the evolution of institutional theory from stability to a focus on the process of change created a mini
theory. As explained by Gleso (2006), mini theories “may be part of the broader system, or they may be theoretical statements that are separate from existing systems”
(p. 5). The development of mini theories is more useful in the research process when working with undeveloped definitions and literature that allow the researcher to
make a final articulation of the data to explain a phenomenon. Specifically, mini theories provide a granular explanation of a phenomenon within a broader system of
theories and should not be mistaken for a paradigm, which is a way of ordering one’s worldview.
The benefits of corporate social responsibility in an empirical research study conducted by Godfrey, Hatch, and Hansen (2010) support the need for a multifaceted view
of corporate social responsibility as it pertains to a theory. Godfrey et al. (2010) produced a study, which supports Gleso’s (2006) assertion of mini theories, and is
highlighted in the works of Doshi and Khokle (2012) and Harrison and Wicks (2013), which argue that corporate social responsibility can be a mini theory of
institutional and stakeholder theories.
The data revealed that a researcher studying corporate social responsibility needs to consider specific themes while accounting only for an industry, matching
contexts, and actions. Contributions to the theory and practice of corporate social responsibility should be determined at a granular level accounting for specific
measures (Doshi & Khokle, 2012; Harrison & Wicks, 2013). When considering the governance of zoos and aquariums as it relates to achieving a carbon-neutral business
operation, the proposed research would be industry specific with matching contexts and actions, which would allow for a contribution to corporate social responsibility
as a mini theory within the broader framework of institutional theory.
Making a contribution to research by using corporate social responsibility as a mini theory requires that the data provide a comprehensive and logical understanding to
explain a phenomenon. Without applying theory to research data, researchers could not take an informed and defensible position and apply it toward creating knowledge.
Ingrid and Donnalyn’s (2010) longitudinal view research regarding corporate social responsibility suggests that although corporate social responsibility is an emerging
mini theory, it still does not yet resemble a full theory on its own. Research findings show that corporate social responsibility can “offer a significant contribution
to the public relations literature and expand upon lesser-examined insider perspectives” (Ingrid & Donnalyn, 2010, p. 219). Future study designs involving corporate
social responsibility could include undertaking additional research, and using study participants who represent various industries to compare and contrast responses on
contexts and actions.
When considering the governance of accredited zoos and aquariums as it relates to achieving a carbon-neutral business operation, using the corporate social
responsibility as a mini theory will realize a deeper sense of understanding for why the organizations have not yet become carbon-neutral. Specifically, applying the
corporate social responsibility mini theory will allow the research data to reveal why something has occurred and not just the occurrence itself. The corporate social
responsibility mini theory would allow the data to be organized in a meaningful way to identify a phenomenon.
According Ables and Martelli (2012), no theory, whether new, old, or in development, is devoid of controversy or unanswered questions. Two arguments against corporate
social responsibility are: the lack of a solid definition, and questions regarding the ability of the corporate social responsibility theory to address issues
surrounding the recent great recession. With regards to the former, corporate social responsibility often includes multiple and sometimes conflicting goals from
shareholders and stakeholders alike which makes it difficult to conduct theoretical and empirical analysis because it has such a diverse application (Ables & Martelli,
2012). With regards to the second concern, Kemper and Martin’s (2010) research about corporate social responsibility found the recent failure of the macroeconomic and
regulatory framework in the great recession challenges some of the principal theories on which corporate social responsibility has been built.
A foundation of corporate social responsibility has been the relationship between business and society, namely the extent to which a business will engage in a specific
behavior, and the impact on a corporation’s financial performance. Kemper and Martin’s (2010) research concluded corporate social responsibility as a theory lacks
sufficient oversight to prevent failure resulting in the reduction of strategic opportunities of firms that engage in corporate social responsibility. In other words,
the lack of oversight in the corporate social responsibility theory can lead to failure when positive social behavior no longer supports financial success.
Although multiple theories—including social, psychological, organizational, economic, and educational—play a role in defining the objectives and missions of accredited
zoo and aquariums, the corporate social responsibility model within institutional theory is the most suitable theory to illuminate every aspect of the overall goals of
each respective facility in the identified study. However, another emerging trend is stakeholder theory that is also embedded within corporate social responsibility.
Corporate Social Responsibility Within Stakeholder Theory
Longsdorf (2011) utilized qualitative research aimed at 26 park administrators in the state of Ohio and explored the use and application of technologies and green
practices, and highlighted the importance of stakeholder involvement. Longsdorf’s (2011) case study survey used 38 open-ended questions to explore each agency’s
engagement in green activities. The findings of this research concluded that every park was involved in some sort of green practice, but everyone felt the need to be
doing more. Each facility represented reported the need to be focusing on a higher level of engagement toward green practices and felt a strong sense of connection
toward their mission and performance. An interesting discovery was that a majority of those surveyed felt that providing more attention to staff education, policies,
and procedures could have a greater impact on the efforts towards becoming carbon neutral, but those issues were not being addressed. Better engagement of
stakeholders might perhaps further the efforts of the Ohio park system and is a key message to the zoos and aquariums of the Pacific Northwest.
Lack of Standards in Carbon Emission Reporting
Standards in reporting carbon offsetting among communities recognized for being role models still lack standardized reporting methods. Mapes and Wolch (2011) examined
29 green communities that have all received recognition and awards for their efforts towards carbon reduction. Among the 29 communities in the study, researchers
found no single set of standards used to calculate either the success or the effectiveness of the project. In fact, Mapes and Wolch (2011) state, “award-winning
projects tend to focus on features that increase community attractiveness to potential buyers, but do not incorporate a full range of attributes to enhance
environmental and socio-economic sustainability” (p. 1). The need for sustainability standards to include breadth and depth of both goals and outcomes is needed to
create equality in how success is measured. In addition, any standards developed would need to have the ability to be empirically monitored and measured with
sustainability indicators long after the building of green construction is completed. A consistent and equal rating system is vital and is needed to help determine a
green project’s success or failure.
When considering the research of Mapes and Wolch (2011) regarding the lack of a consistent rating system for carbon emission reductions, it is understandable that
attitudes towards efforts to reduce carbon emissions—as well as attitudes towards the very concept of global warming—are ones of skepticism. Heinonen, Säynäjoki, and
Seppo (2011) examined the greenhouse gases that are emitted during the construction and lifecycle of a various green building projects. Through their case study
research, they discovered that efforts to create an energy-efficient building actually spike carbon emissions during the construction phase of a project. The carbon
produced during the construction of energy-efficient buildings would take decades to be mitigated and in some cases would reverse the carbon mitigation of the
building. Although the case study does not discuss regional comparisons, it supports the recommendations by Mapes and Wolch (2011) for a consistent and equal rating
system to discover what determines success or failure of a green project.
When considering green projects and buildings, the issues go far beyond materials and outcomes. Ethics in reporting carbon reduction efforts and the proper use of
technologies must also play a role as it relates to environmentally responsible building. In a study by Rolston (2011), the issue of ethics is examined as it relates
to rebuilding the environment. Rolston (2011) highlights that ethics are what help shift the values held globally as industry increases. Development at rapid speed
is a pace unsustainable for the environment. By having a better understanding of our environment on a holistic level, we will be able to leverage technologies to
mitigate negative environment actions. However, Rolston (2011) argues that ethics need to be a part of any equation when it comes to environmentally responsible
building. Super technologies, as Rolston (2011) refers to them, have the power to change our natural world; and with any alternation of our natural world, ethical
considerations need to be at the heart of any decision. Rolston (2011) does not attempt to provide a solution, as this is an ongoing debate. His review simply
highlights the importance of ethics in any environmental rebuilding efforts.
Although there is considerable ongoing debate about standards and measurements relating to carbon reduction, documented work is still being done to reduce CO2
emissions. In a 2012 quantitative study by Singh and Eames, the efficacies in doors, windows, water heating systems, and HAVC systems that were currently available
for purchase on the market were compared with those same products that were produced prior to 2008. Using a quantitative comparison of the carbon emissions output
from items manufactured prior to 2008 to post-2008 products, researchers found a significant reduction in carbon emissions in the post-2008 products. Researchers
found that the effectiveness of new technologies has improved greatly over the last decade, and that results can be quantified in a positive direction. Singh and
Eames (2012) note, “These changes used in conjunction with solar energy water heating and PV systems can reduce the carbon footprint of the existing housing stock,
achieving an over 85% reduction in CO2 emissions that result from space and water heating” (p. 254). The findings of this research showed that as technology advances
there are significant benefits to reducing carbon emissions, and that perhaps technology improvement is more effective than a consumer shift of habits at reducing such
emissions. The research did not discuss the carbon output in the manufacturing process, so manufacturing output might lessen the 85% reduction amount cited. But this
research is a positive indicator in the overall effort to reduce carbon emission.
Lack of reporting standards extends beyond green building projects to include business activities and actions. Hrasky (2012) provided evidence between symbolic
changes versus actual changes in carbon footprint disclosure among private businesses. The purpose of the study was to determine if businesses have altered their
footprint-related disclosure responses simply for the symbolism or actually due to corporate responsibility. In the report, Hrasky (2012) highlighted the need to
adopt a legitimate perspective about carbon footprint disclosure. With a legitimate perspective, pragmatic or moral approaches will surface that highlight disclosure
tends and whether they are more reflective of symbolism or of behavior. The research shows a moral strategy approach through regulation by carbon-intensive sectors,
but the more symbolic reporting comes from the less carbon-intensive sectors presumably due to lack of regulation (Hrasky, 2012).
While pursuing a moral strategy is a step in the right direction, effective climate policy is still missing from the equation. Hrasky (2012) suggests that a well-
defined climate policy will be the catalyst for organizations that do not follow a moral strategy. Research by Aldy and Stavins (2012) addresses the effect of climate
change and its effect on diverse aspects of economic activity. Identified in the research is government spending, business investment, and individual consumption.
The research concluded that only the development of policy would be effective enough to modify the decision-making calculus. “In order for economic activities to
follow the direction of being more efficient, generation and use policies are required” (Aldy & Stavins, 2012, p. 56). The decision calculus for more efficient
policies is still an issue that has no formal consensus; however, carbon pricing seems to be the more commonly discussed solution.
The research by Aldy and Stavins (2012) states that the “only technically feasible and cost-effective approach to achieving this goal on a meaningful scale is carbon
pricing, that is, market-based climate policies that place a shadow-price on carbon dioxide emissions” (p. 57). The study also explored cap and trade, clean energy
standards, and carbon taxes as effective instruments in alternative designs. The findings note that the United States’ “political response to possible market-based
approaches to climate policy has been and will continue to be largely a function of issues and structural factors that transcend the scope of environmental and climate
policy” (Aldy & Stavins, 2012, p. 58). This research highlights the need for a multi-faceted approach to the reduction of greenhouse gases (Aldy & Stavins, 2012).
Although carbon pricing may appear to be the most effective solution, that policy alone would be ineffective unless measurement standards are in place for determining
carbon output.
Dias and Arroja’s (2012) studied several methods currently used for determining a product’s carbon footprint. Although their study was focused on the outcomes and
implications of the current methods of production for office paper, it showed there is still no single standard for how to calculate a carbon footprint. According to
Dias and Arroja (2012), there are three standards in office paper production and carbon footprint reporting: “(1) the ISO 14040/14044 standards limited to the analysis
of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the corresponding impact category global warming; (2) the PAS 2050; and (3) the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI)
framework” (p. 32). Of the three methods used, the range of carbon output is 4.29 to 4.64 gCo.eq per sheet of paper. The 0.35 difference represents a 12% difference
on the average carbon output. Although 12% is not a high number, for those wishing to become a 100% carbon neutral organization it could be the difference of
completion or failure. Dias and Arroja’s (2012) research did not provide enough data for the comparison of products, but it shows there still is a need for a standard
calculation for carbon output.
Research of Broto and Bulkeley (2013) conducted a qualitative study exploring the criminal justice aspects of climate change. Their research highlighted that most of
the attention given to climate change issues only seemed to center on matters related to scale and politics. Through a qualitative study, they applied the use of
criminal justice system to effect climate change as an emerging and effective change agent. Examining over 100 major cities, Broto and Bulkeley (2013) explored the
use of procedural justice in climate change policies to major the outcome and effectiveness to actual change. The researchers discovered that when climate change
policies had adaption and mitigation enforcement methods attached to them, the outcomes were more effective. However, the researchers discovered that a person’s
reasonability toward the environment diminished with the use of enforcement methods. The researchers also compared regional attitudes of enforcement methods and
discovered that southern states tended to report that their freedoms and rights were being eroded with enforcement of environmental policies. Further research is
needed to compare and contrast the lasting impacts of a reasonable approach versus an enforcement approach to environmental policies that lack of enforcement may lead
to a culture of dismissive attitudes on global warning.
In a case study by Lenzen and Cummins (2013), policy changes geared toward lifestyle choices rather than carbon emission output are explored. The researchers argue
that by creating policies that focus on the wellbeing of a person will, in turn, mitigate environmental impacts. The researchers discovered that as an individual’s
education and income increases so do their carbon emissions. Therefore, the people most likely to have the knowledge and means to reduce carbon emissions are the same
groups that are the major contributors. Lenzen and Cummins (2013) discussed the need to create policies that strike a balance between convenience of an individual and
the well-being of the common order. This research highlights the need for social changes in reducing ones carbon footprint, but lacks comprehensive survey information
to identify any action plans. Lenzen and Cummins (2013) state:
Focusing policy on wellbeing rather than consumption and affluence holds the promise of benefiting the environment, but breaking detrimental addictions with wealth and
overcoming detrimental individualism is a daunting societal challenge especially in developed countries where people have experienced convenient suburban lifestyles.
(p. 58)
Without agreement on effective policy and measurements of carbon emissions, no organization can truly measure success. Defining a single standard for reporting carbon
emission is critical to success for zoos and aquariums in achieving a carbon neutral status, along with educating consumers about reduction strategies. Educating
consumer’s helps address the perspectives of visitors who are also stakeholders, that carbon reduction is a global issue.

Summary
The intent of the research is to expand on research available about carbon neutrality and explore corporate social responsibility concepts of institutional theory to
define the perceived barriers that are preventing accredited zoos and aquariums, specifically those of the Pacific Northwest, in achieving a carbon neutral status. By
attempting to introduce new information on why Pacific Northwest zoos and aquariums have not achieved carbon neutrality, new knowledge will be identified thereby
providing benchmark data for all zoos and aquariums.
The review of literature provided a better understanding of the complex issues surrounding carbon neutrality, but there is still no evidence to clearly
identify the barriers that are preventing accredited zoos and aquariums from achieving a carbon neutral stats. The literature review was divided to show awareness
surrounding carbon neutrality, perspective, and opposition through a lack of clearly defined standards. However, the literature did show that educational activities
regarding conservation efforts have a positive impact on the customers of zoos and aquariums; it also showed how various theories combined with organizational change
can be utilized to reveal potential avenues towards achieving carbon neutrality.
The preceding theories examined are central to corporate social responsibility, offering potentials for filling a theoretical void by exploring a broad set of
institutional management decisions within accredited zoos and aquariums of the Pacific Northwest where socially responsible corporate behavior is a central component
of their missions. In addition, by building on the theories discussed, decision makers will have a foundation by which to improve processes and outcomes within their
respective organizations.
TO GET YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE,PLACE YOUR ORDER WITH US NOW