Values-Led Business: A Critical Analysis of Ben & Jerry’s Progressive Corporate Social Responsibility Framework

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

This article examines the distinctive Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) approach pioneered by Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., analyzing how the company has integrated social activism and environmental sustainability into its core business model while navigating the complexities of corporate ownership under Unilever. Through a critical assessment of Ben & Jerry’s three-part mission statement, stakeholder governance structures, and innovative social initiatives, this research illuminates the company’s evolution from a small-scale Vermont ice cream shop to a global exemplar of values-based business. The analysis demonstrates how Ben & Jerry’s has maintained its socially progressive identity while operating within conventional market structures, offering insights into the tensions and opportunities inherent in pursuing both profit and purpose. This case study contributes to CSR discourse by examining how companies can effectively operationalize authentic social commitments while navigating the pressures of scale, growth, and corporate consolidation.

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Social Enterprise, Stakeholder Capitalism, Sustainable Business, B Corporation, Ethical Consumerism, Ben & Jerry’s, Values-Led Business

1. Introduction

The evolving landscape of corporate responsibility has witnessed a paradigmatic shift from peripheral philanthropic activities toward integrated approaches that embed social and environmental considerations into organizational identity and operations (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Within this context, Ben & Jerry’s presents a compelling case study of a company that has placed values-driven business practices at the center of its strategic orientation since its founding in 1978. The company’s distinctive approach has expanded conventional understandings of corporate purpose beyond profit maximization to encompass explicit commitments to social justice, environmental sustainability, and community welfare (Mirvis & Googins, 2006).

Founded by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield in Burlington, Vermont, Ben & Jerry’s emerged from countercultural roots that informed its early rejection of conventional business paradigms (Page & Katz, 2012). The company’s subsequent trajectory—from local ice cream parlor to global brand acquired by Unilever in 2000—provides a rich empirical context for examining how progressive corporate values can be maintained through substantial organizational transformation and scale (Austin & Leonard, 2008). This acquisition represents a particularly significant juncture for analysis, as it exemplifies the tensions between mission-driven business practices and the structural imperatives of global capitalism (Joutsenvirta, 2013).

This article examines how Ben & Jerry’s has operationalized its commitments to social responsibility across multiple dimensions, including product development, supply chain management, employment practices, and political advocacy. The research interrogates both the substantive achievements and persistent limitations of the company’s approach, critically assessing the extent to which Ben & Jerry’s represents a genuinely transformative model of business practice or a more limited form of “enlightened capitalism” constrained by market fundamentals (Conley & Williams, 2005).

The significance of this analysis extends beyond documenting corporate sustainability practices; it contributes to broader theoretical debates regarding the potential for businesses to serve as vehicles for progressive social change while operating within conventional economic structures (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). By scrutinizing Ben & Jerry’s sustainability journey, this research enhances understanding of the practical implementation of stakeholder capitalism principles and the governance mechanisms required to maintain authentic social commitments through corporate transition.

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

2.1 The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility Models

The theoretical conceptualization of CSR has undergone substantial refinement since early formulations focused on discretionary philanthropic activities (Carroll, 1999). Contemporary scholarship has increasingly recognized the strategic dimensions of corporate responsibility, positioning social and environmental initiatives as potential sources of competitive advantage rather than strictly altruistic endeavors (Porter & Kramer, 2006). This evolution reflects broader shifts in understanding corporate purpose and the relationship between business and society (Matten & Crane, 2005).

Frederick (1994) delineated a progressive taxonomy of corporate responsibility orientations, from CSR1 (compliance-focused responsibility) to CSR4 (cosmological responsibility addressing fundamental questions of corporate existence within broader social and ecological systems). This framework provides a useful lens for analyzing Ben & Jerry’s approach, which exhibits characteristics of advanced CSR orientations through its explicit integration of social purpose into organizational identity and governance (Visser, 2014).

Recent scholarship has paid particular attention to “mission-driven businesses” that articulate explicit social objectives alongside financial goals (Haigh & Hoffman, 2012). These organizations challenge traditional dichotomies between for-profit and non-profit sectors by demonstrating alternative organizational forms that prioritize multiple forms of value creation (Battilana & Lee, 2014). Ben & Jerry’s represents a significant example of this hybrid approach, having pioneered governance structures and performance metrics that account for social and environmental impacts alongside financial returns (Page & Katz, 2012).

2.2 Stakeholder Theory and Values-Based Business

Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory provides a foundational framework for analyzing Ben & Jerry’s approach to corporate responsibility. The theory posits that corporate success depends on effectively managing relationships with diverse constituencies affected by or capable of affecting organizational activities. This perspective challenges shareholder primacy paradigms by recognizing the legitimate interests of employees, communities, suppliers, customers, and ecosystems in corporate decision-making (Harrison et al., 2010).

Ben & Jerry’s explicit adoption of a stakeholder orientation aligns with theoretical developments that position businesses as embedded within complex social and ecological systems rather than discrete economic entities (Bansal & Song, 2017). The company’s three-part mission statement—addressing product quality, economic performance, and social impact—exemplifies what Elkington (1997) termed the “triple bottom line” approach to business, incorporating social, environmental, and financial dimensions of corporate performance.

Research by Waddock and Graves (1997) identified positive associations between corporate social performance and financial outcomes, suggesting potential alignment between stakeholder management and economic success. However, subsequent studies have revealed more complex relationships conditioned by industry context, temporal factors, and measurement approaches (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). Ben & Jerry’s experience provides empirical insights into these dynamics, particularly regarding how social commitments affect brand perception, consumer loyalty, and competitive positioning (Palazzo & Basu, 2007).

2.3 Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Activism

The concept of social entrepreneurship has gained prominence as scholars have examined how innovative business models can address societal challenges while generating sustainable financial returns (Austin et al., 2006). Social entrepreneurs typically leverage market mechanisms to achieve positive social outcomes, often by redefining business models, value propositions, or stakeholder relationships (Dacin et al., 2011). Ben & Jerry’s founders exemplify this orientation through their explicit rejection of conventional business paradigms in favor of approaches that integrate commercial and social objectives (Page & Katz, 2012).

Corporate activism represents a related but distinct dimension of socially responsible business practice, involving explicit advocacy on contentious political and social issues (Korschun et al., 2016). Recent research has examined how companies navigate the opportunities and risks associated with public positioning on divisive topics, identifying factors that influence stakeholder responses to corporate activism (Hydock et al., 2020). Ben & Jerry’s consistent willingness to take controversial political stances—from climate change to racial justice—provides valuable empirical context for understanding corporate activism dynamics (Bhattacharya et al., 2018).

3. Methodology

This research employs a qualitative case study methodology to analyze Ben & Jerry’s CSR approach, drawing upon multiple data sources to ensure analytical rigor and triangulation (Yin, 2018). Primary data sources include Ben & Jerry’s social impact reports (2015-2024), corporate communications, public statements, and policy documents. These materials were systematically coded using thematic analysis techniques to identify recurring patterns, strategic emphases, and evolutionary trajectories in the company’s social responsibility approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Secondary data comprise academic articles, industry analyses, and independent assessments of Ben & Jerry’s social performance. External evaluations from B Lab (the non-profit organization that certifies B Corporations), Ethisphere Institute, and various consumer watchdog organizations provide critical perspectives that help mitigate potential self-reporting biases in corporate documents (Roberts, 2003).

The analytical framework incorporates both chronological and thematic dimensions. Chronologically, the analysis traces Ben & Jerry’s CSR evolution across three distinct phases: the founding period (1978-1999) characterized by entrepreneurial experimentation with progressive business practices; the early post-acquisition period (2000-2010) marked by negotiation of corporate values within Unilever’s structure; and the contemporary period (2011-present) reflecting renewed activism and advanced sustainability initiatives. Thematically, the research examines four core dimensions of Ben & Jerry’s CSR approach: product innovation and sourcing practices, environmental sustainability, social justice advocacy, and governance mechanisms for maintaining mission alignment.

4. Analysis and Discussion

4.1 The Evolution of Ben & Jerry’s Mission-Driven Business Model

Ben & Jerry’s distinctive approach to corporate responsibility emerged directly from its founders’ countercultural orientation and explicit rejection of conventional business paradigms (Cohen & Greenfield, 1997). The company’s three-part mission statement, formalized in 1988, articulated interconnected commitments to “product quality, economic sustainability, and social responsibility” that constituted an early manifestation of stakeholder capitalism principles (Ben & Jerry’s, 2022). This explicit orientation toward multiple forms of value creation distinguished Ben & Jerry’s from contemporaneous CSR approaches that typically positioned social initiatives as supplementary to core business activities (Frederick, 1994).

A pivotal development in Ben & Jerry’s governance structure occurred in 1998 with the establishment of an independent Board of Directors empowered to protect and advance the company’s social mission (Page & Katz, 2012). This innovation represented an institutional response to growing tensions between progressive corporate values and conventional market pressures—particularly regarding potential acquisition scenarios. The board structure subsequently proved instrumental during Unilever’s acquisition in 2000, resulting in a unique legal agreement that preserved substantial mission-related autonomy for Ben & Jerry’s while integrating the company into Unilever’s operational structure (Austin & Leonard, 2008).

Critical analysis reveals both achievements and limitations in maintaining mission alignment post-acquisition. The preservation of an independent board with explicit social responsibility oversight represents a significant governance innovation that has enabled Ben & Jerry’s to maintain distinct values-based practices within a conventional corporate structure (Joutsenvirta, 2013). However, research by Edmondson and Carroll (1999) identified strategic tensions regarding growth imperatives, international expansion, and marketing authenticity that have periodically challenged the company’s progressive identity.

Ben & Jerry’s achievement of B Corporation certification in 2012 signaled a recommitment to formalized social responsibility standards following a period of relative quiescence in the early post-acquisition years (B Lab, 2023). This certification requires comprehensive assessment of social and environmental performance, transparency, and legal accountability to stakeholder interests. Ben & Jerry’s consistently high B Impact scores (96.5 in 2021, significantly above the median score of 80 for certified companies) suggests substantial integration of social responsibility principles across operational dimensions (B Lab, 2023).

4.2 Sustainable Sourcing and Supply Chain Innovation

Ben & Jerry’s approach to ingredient sourcing represents a core dimension of its CSR strategy, extending beyond conventional supplier management to encompass transformative supply chain interventions. The company’s “Caring Dairy” program, established in 2003, exemplifies this approach by establishing comprehensive sustainability standards for participating farms across economic, social, and environmental dimensions (Ben & Jerry’s, 2023). The program incorporates metrics addressing animal welfare, soil health, water conservation, and farmer livelihoods, reflecting a holistic conception of agricultural sustainability that aligns with regenerative agriculture principles (Rhodes, 2017).

Analysis of Ben & Jerry’s Fairtrade commitment, initiated in 2005 and completed for all eligible ingredients by 2011, demonstrates the company’s willingness to accept higher input costs to advance supplier welfare (Ben & Jerry’s, 2022). This commitment extends beyond certification compliance to include direct intervention in supply chains, exemplified by the company’s Chocolate Value Chain program in Ghana that includes specific initiatives addressing farm productivity, community development, and agricultural diversification (Ben & Jerry’s, 2023).

Ben & Jerry’s supply chain approach demonstrates integration of what Gereffi et al. (2005) termed “governing” rather than merely “connecting” practices, characterized by direct engagement with social and environmental conditions of production rather than arm’s-length certification. This orientation reflects a recognition of corporate responsibility extending beyond organizational boundaries to encompass impacts throughout the value chain (Palazzo & Richter, 2005).

A critical assessment reveals both substantial achievements and persistent limitations in Ben & Jerry’s sourcing practices. The company has successfully implemented rigorous standards across multiple ingredients, driving industry innovation particularly regarding dairy sustainability and cocoa sourcing (Alvarez & von Hagen, 2011). However, the globalized nature of commodity supply chains creates inevitable compromises between social commitments and operational constraints, particularly regarding implementation verification and impact measurement (Soundararajan & Brown, 2016).

4.3 Environmental Sustainability Initiatives

Ben & Jerry’s environmental strategy encompasses interrelated initiatives addressing climate impact, packaging sustainability, and waste reduction. The company established science-based targets aligned with the Paris Agreement, committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% per pint of ice cream produced by 2025 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2040 (Ben & Jerry’s, 2021). This commitment extends beyond operational emissions to include scope 3 emissions throughout the supply chain, recognizing that approximately 53% of the company’s carbon footprint derives from dairy production (Ben & Jerry’s, 2021).

The company’s carbon pricing mechanism, implemented in 2015, represents an innovative approach to internalizing environmental externalities by assessing a fee of $10 per ton on carbon emissions across its operations (Ben & Jerry’s, 2020). This program generates funding for supply chain carbon reduction projects while creating internal economic incentives for emissions reduction. According to the company’s sustainability reports, this initiative has directed over $2.5 million toward carbon mitigation projects, primarily focused on agricultural practices (Ben & Jerry’s, 2022).

Packaging sustainability initiatives have achieved incremental progress, with the company transitioning to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified paperboard for pint containers in 2009 (Ben & Jerry’s, 2020). However, the persistence of plastic components in packaging design reflects ongoing challenges in balancing functional requirements, consumer expectations, and environmental impact. The company’s commitment to eliminate single-use plastic from its Scoop Shops by 2025 represents a more ambitious target that aligns with evolving industry standards regarding plastic pollution (Ben & Jerry’s, 2022).

Critical analysis reveals that while Ben & Jerry’s has implemented more comprehensive environmental initiatives than industry averages, persistent challenges remain regarding absolute impact reduction within a growth-oriented business model (Wright & Nyberg, 2017). The fundamental tension between increasing production volumes and reducing total environmental impact represents a structural contradiction that innovative practices can mitigate but not fully resolve within conventional market frameworks (Jackson, 2009).

4.4 Social Justice Advocacy and Corporate Activism

Ben & Jerry’s approach to social advocacy distinguishes the company from conventional CSR practitioners through its willingness to engage explicitly with contentious political issues (Korschun et al., 2016). The company’s activism encompasses both campaign-specific initiatives and structural interventions addressing systemic inequities. This dual approach is exemplified by the company’s racial justice work, which includes both public advocacy regarding specific incidents of police violence and structural initiatives such as the “Justice ReMix’d” flavor campaign supporting criminal justice reform (Ben & Jerry’s, 2022).

The company’s advocacy strategy deliberately leverages its consumer communication channels to amplify progressive political messages, utilizing product naming, packaging, website content, and social media platforms as vehicles for issue education and mobilization (Palazzo & Basu, 2007). This integration of political messaging into commercial channels represents a distinctive approach to corporate activism that blurs conventional boundaries between business and advocacy organizations (Bhattacharya et al., 2018).

Ben & Jerry’s engagement with contentious issues—including climate justice, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, and refugee support—has generated both consumer loyalty among aligned constituencies and criticism from political opponents (Hydock et al., 2020). Research by Holt et al. (2004) identified this polarizing dynamic as potentially beneficial for brands seeking cultural resonance and authenticity among progressive consumers, suggesting strategic alignment between Ben & Jerry’s activist positioning and its core market segments.

Critical assessment reveals both genuine commitment and strategic calculation in Ben & Jerry’s advocacy approach. The company’s willingness to address controversial issues predates contemporary trends toward “woke capitalism” and reflects consistent values rather than opportunistic positioning (Vredenburg et al., 2020). However, the selective nature of the company’s activism—focusing primarily on issues with substantial support among its core consumer demographics—raises questions about the extent to which market considerations constrain corporate political speech (Korschun et al., 2016).

5. Critical Assessment and Limitations

While Ben & Jerry’s has established a comprehensive CSR approach with demonstrable achievements, critical assessment reveals several limitations and contradictions. The company’s fundamental business model remains predicated on discretionary consumption of premium products, creating tensions with environmental sustainability objectives due to resource-intensive dairy production and global distribution networks (Wright & Nyberg, 2017). These structural contradictions illustrate the constraints that conventional market frameworks impose on even the most progressive corporate actors.

The acquisition by Unilever, while preserving substantial mission-related autonomy, has inevitably influenced Ben & Jerry’s strategic orientation through integration into global corporate growth imperatives (Austin & Leonard, 2008). This dynamic exemplifies broader tensions between alternative business models and conventional market structures, highlighting the challenges of maintaining authentic social commitments within dominant economic systems (Joutsenvirta, 2013).

From a social perspective, Ben & Jerry’s premium pricing strategy and predominant distribution through conventional retail channels limits accessibility for economically disadvantaged communities, potentially constraining the inclusive impact of its social mission (Prahalad & Hammond, 2002). This contradiction highlights complex relationships between commercial imperatives and social inclusivity within corporate sustainability frameworks.

Additionally, while Ben & Jerry’s demonstrates greater transparency than industry averages regarding social and environmental performance, selective disclosure practices regarding challenging aspects of its operations constrain potential for authentic stakeholder dialogue about sustainability trade-offs (Christensen et al., 2013). This limitation reflects broader tensions between marketing imperatives and substantive accountability in corporate sustainability communications.

6. Conclusion

Ben & Jerry’s distinctive approach to Corporate Social Responsibility demonstrates how a consumer products company can meaningfully integrate social activism and environmental sustainability into its core business model while navigating the complexities of corporate ownership. The analysis presented in this article identifies several distinctive characteristics of Ben & Jerry’s CSR strategy: explicit articulation of social purpose in governance structures, transformative supply chain interventions, environmental initiatives addressing systematic impact reduction, and willingness to engage in contentious political advocacy.

Ben & Jerry’s experience illustrates the potential for businesses to advance progressive social agendas while operating within conventional market structures, yet simultaneously reveals the constraints that existing economic systems impose on transformative business practices. The company’s navigation of these tensions—particularly following acquisition by Unilever—provides valuable insights regarding the governance mechanisms and institutional arrangements necessary to preserve mission alignment through corporate transition.

This case study contributes to CSR literature by demonstrating how companies can effectively operationalize stakeholder capitalism principles through specific organizational practices, policies, and governance structures. Ben & Jerry’s approach suggests that meaningful corporate responsibility requires systematic integration of social and environmental considerations into core business decisions rather than isolated philanthropic initiatives or superficial sustainability claims.

Future research directions could include longitudinal analysis of how Ben & Jerry’s social mission evolves within Unilever’s corporate structure, comparative assessment of different institutional arrangements for preserving social purpose through corporate transitions, and empirical investigation of how corporate activism influences consumer behavior and brand perception across different demographic and geographic segments.

References

Alvarez, G., & von Hagen, O. (2011). The impacts of private standards on producers in developing countries: Literature review series on the impacts of private standards, part II. International Trade Centre, Geneva.

Austin, J. E., & Leonard, H. B. (2008). Can the virtuous mouse and the wealthy elephant live happily ever after? California Management Review, 51(1), 77-102.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.

Bansal, P., & Song, H. C. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105-149.

Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441.

B Lab. (2023). B Impact Report: Ben & Jerry’s. Retrieved from https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/find-a-b-corp/company/ben-jerrys/

Ben & Jerry’s. (2020). SEAR (Social and Environmental Assessment Report) 2019. Burlington, VT: Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc.

Ben & Jerry’s. (2021). Climate justice at Ben & Jerry’s. Retrieved from https://www.benjerry.com/values/issues-we-care-about/climate-justice

Ben & Jerry’s. (2022). SEAR (Social and Environmental Assessment Report) 2021. Burlington, VT: Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc.

Ben & Jerry’s. (2023). Values-led sourcing report 2022. Burlington, VT: Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2018). What stakeholders expect from corporations when it comes to paying for human rights. Business and Society Review, 123(3), 403-440.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.

Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.

Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372-393.

Cohen, B., & Greenfield, J. (1997). Ben & Jerry’s double-dip: Lead with your values and make money, too. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Conley, J. M., & Williams, C. A. (2005). Engage, embed, and embellish: Theory versus practice in the corporate social responsibility movement. Journal of Corporation Law, 31(1), 1-38.

Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37-57.

Edmondson, V. C., & Carroll, A. B. (1999). Giving back: An examination of the philanthropic motivations, orientations and activities of large black-owned businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(2), 171-179.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.

Frederick, W. C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business & Society, 33(2), 150-164.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78-104.

Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126-134.

Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58-74.

Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., & Taylor, E. L. (2004). How global brands compete. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 68-75.

Hydock, C., Paharia, N., & Blair, S. (2020). Should your brand pick a side? How market share determines the impact of corporate political advocacy. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(6), 1135-1151.

Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan.

Joutsenvirta, M. (2013). Executive pay and legitimacy: Changing discursive battles over the morality of excessive manager compensation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 459-477.

Korschun, D., Aggarwal, A., Rafieian, H., & Swain, S. D. (2016). Taking a stand: Consumer responses to corporate political activism. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 284-299.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.

Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166-179.

Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management Review, 48(2), 104-126.

Page, A., & Katz, R. A. (2012). The truth about Ben & Jerry’s. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(4), 39-43.

Palazzo, G., & Basu, K. (2007). The ethical backlash of corporate branding. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(4), 333-346.

Palazzo, G., & Richter, U. (2005). CSR business as usual? The case of the tobacco industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 387-401.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48-59.

Rhodes, C. J. (2017). The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Science Progress, 100(1), 80-129.

Roberts, R. W. (2003). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595-612.

Soundararajan, V., & Brown, J. A. (2016). Voluntary governance mechanisms in global supply chains: Beyond CSR to a stakeholder utility perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(1), 83-102.

Visser, W. (2014). CSR 2.0: Transforming corporate sustainability and responsibility. London: Springer.

Vredenburg, J., Kapitan, S., Spry, A., & Kemper, J. A. (2020). Brands taking a stand: Authentic brand activism or woke washing? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39(4), 444-460.

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.

Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2017). An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Academy of Management Journal, 60(5), 1633-1661.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.