The CSR Activities in England and Germany, Essay Example
There have been a small number of references on historical CSR listed in table 1 below:
Table 1: References related to historical CSR
|Number of participants||Methodology/
|(Argandona & von Weltzien Hoivik 2009)||n/a||n/a||Unique definitions for CSR unlikely
CSR is mainly an ethical concept in Europe over hundreds of years
|Comparing different models of CSR is neither possible nor desirable|
|(Idowu 2011)||n/a||n/a||Provides analysis of historical events of CSR (Freeman & Liedtka 1991 / 2011)in the UK and its cultural issues.||Conceptual/theoretical. No empirical evidence
No link to modern definitions of CSR.
|(Freeman & Liedtka 1991 / 2011)||n/a||n/a||Based on historical view on CSR in the USA referring to Carnegie´s charity principle and stewardship principle. Support Friedman’s argument that government would be the only legitimate vehicle to address social concerns.||Conceptual/theoretical. Contrary to common held views of CSR in modern business.|
|(Smith 2003)||n/a||n/a||Based on historical CSR activities in the UK. Differentiates between CSR for business and normative cases and makes case for CSR as profitable strategy.||Fails to account for problems associated with implementation of some CSR strategies. Theoretical/conceptual in nature.|
Argandona and von Weltzien Hoivik (2009) refer to the historical tradition of CSR in Europe and suggest that CSR is an ethical concept based on cultural, political and socio-economic drivers under specific conditions in different European countries at different points in time. Furthermore they state that demands for social responsibility actions have been around long before the Industrial Revolution. Thus, there is no unique clear definition of CSR and probably will never be. They reveal that today´s managers prefer to conduct CSR activities for better bottom line results rather than displaying business behaviour based on cultural ethics in business. They conclude that comparing different models of CSR is neither possible nor desirable which limits the significance of their findings.
In his data collection from literature and prior studies Idowu (2011) gathers information about the history of CSR, predominantly from the perspective of the UK. In his paper he presents a picture of early CSR activities in the UK beginning in the 15th century and further on during the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century. The results suggest that individuals in groups, industrialists/entrepreneurs acting individually, and even corporate entities have been indirectly engaged in altruistic CSR activities in the UK for well over 200 years. Thus, he demonstrated that the UK has a long history of CSR. However, no CSR activity could be revealed which would meet the definitions of today´s understanding although the historical engagement in CSR was also voluntarily.
Freeman and Liedtka (1991) refer to the historical view on CSR from an American perspective. They state that the ideas of CSR trace back to Andrew Carnegie, the founder of U.S. steels, who formulated two CSR related principles. The charity principle which could be conducted directly or indirectly, committed more fortunate members of the society to help more unfortunate members of the society, such as the unemployed, the disables, the sick and the elderly. The second principle, the stewardship principle, required businesses and wealthy individuals to see themselves as stewards or caretakers of their property. The rich should hold their money in trust for the rest of the society. The authors refer to and support Milton Friedman´s idea of the government to be the best and only legitimate vehicle for addressing social concerns. With their opinion that CSR is no longer a useful concept they are contrary to common held views of CSR in modern business.
Smith (2003) has based his business case and normative case of CSR on early historical CSR activities in the UK in the 19th century. The philanthropic activities, conducted by very few single industrialists, offered improved general living conditions for their work force due to massive environmental pollutions of industrial businesses. Environmental issues emerged as the first drivers of CSR in the UK. Additional CSR activities related to recreation and education of their staff were also subject to altruistic CSR activities. Less vulnerability to the political unrest and militancy evident at that time as well as increased productivity were accidental but welcome side effects of the improved work environment and better living conditions. In differentiating between CSR as a business case or a normative case the author makes the point for the profitability of CSR but fails to account for problems associated with implementation of some CSR strategies.
CSR is an ethical construct with a long tradition in Europe, and requirements for socially responsible conduct within the business world have their roots in the Industrial era. Within Europe, the idea of CSR has continued to evolve over time based on cultural, social and political factors. Therefore, a precise definition of CSR is difficult to determine. This is somewhat confusing for business academics, and serves as an example of a key weakness in the measurement and evaluation of corporate social responsibility in the research realm.
CSR tradition has delineated three components of responsibility, including economic, social, and environmental. As a result, CSR reflects the overall nature of a firm and its respective role in society and with its stakeholders. The ultimate reasons to be responsible, however, should not be for external results, but due to intrinsic moral factors that guide people within the organization.
CSR concepts and ideas
There have been a huge number of references on CSR philosophies, ideas and concepts from the early 1970s up to now. Table 2 below outlines some of the most significant sources.
Table 2: References related to CSR concepts and ideas
|Number of participants||Methodology/
|(Friedman 1970)||n/a||n/a||CSR as a socialistic concept is to rejected. In a capitalistic environment businesses have to use their resources and increase profit in accordance with law without fraud.||Not an empirical study. Solely theoretical in nature|
|(Wartick & Cochran 1985)||n/a||n/a||Traces evolution of CSR model and focuses on multiple challenges regarding social responsiveness. Examines social issues of management and its relationship to CSR.||Strictly theoretical/explanatory. No empirical evidence and not necessarily research-based.|
|(Carroll 1991)||n/a||n/a||Provides a model to improve corporate social responsibility and moral management of a firm. Suggests a balance can be struck between CSR and profitability.||Once again, not based in empirical research. Solely theoretical in nature.|
|(Frederick 1994)||n/a||n/a||Outlines a conceptual business transition in business and society scholarship, from philosophical concept of CSR to social responsiveness.||Lacks empirical evidence, solely theoretical.|
|(Carroll 1999)||n/a||n/a||Discusses history of CSR and evolution of construct. Fewer definitions available and more empirical research now existent.||Lacks empirical evidence, solely theoretical.|
|(Lantos 2002)||n/a||n/a||Explains and describes the ethicality of altruistic CSR to be immoral for publicly owned organisations||Lacks empirical evidence, solely theoretical.|
|(McWilliams & Siegel 2001)||n/a||n/a||Theoretical proposal of supply/demand model of CSR. A firm’s level of CSR depends on its size, level of diversification, research and development, advertising, government sales, consumer income, labor market condition, etc…||Lacks empirical evidence, solely theoretical in nature.|
|(Jensen 2001)||n/a||n/a||Sets a definition of CSR as an extended model of corporate governance and accounts for voluntary approach to CSR. Bases definition on social contract factors, reputation, and reciprocity.||Lacks empirical evidence. Solely theoretical.|
|Joyner & Payne (2002)||2 U.S. organisations||Structured qualitative interviews||Provides evidence for two successful firms that have implemented CSR strategies and values to their benefit.||Small sample size, self-selecting sample. No empirical evidence, qualitative in nature. No causal results.|
|(Jackson 2003)||n/a||n/a||Provides theoretical understanding of CSR from its multiple levels. At one level, self- and co-regulation rule CSR definition. At another, it challenges the idea of liberal market economy.||Lacks empirical evidence, solely theoretical.|
|Garriga & Mele (2004)||n/a||n/a||Aims to clarify CSR territory mapping problem and places CSR theories into four groups: instrumental, political, integrative, ethical.||Theoretical in nature but may provide practical problems. No empirical evidence of these designations.|
|(Prior, Surocca & Tribo 2008)||Archival data from 593 industrial firms from 26 countries between 2002 and 2004.||Utilises earnings management formula to compute expected accruals. Tests robustness using income smoothing formula. Return on Assets formula to assess value of assets among firms. Multiple regressions run to detect significant differences.||Found a positive impact of earnings management practices on CSR, which holds for different robustness checks. Also demonstrates combination of earnings management and CSR has negative impact on financial performance.||Reduced number of years on which findings are based. Fails to look at endogeneity issues. Does not consider possibility that other types of variables could intervene in relationship between earnings management, CSR, and financial performance. Competing theoretical arguments as well.|
|van Marrewijk (2003)||n/a||n/a||Provides overview of the contemporary debate on CSR concepts and definitions. Proposes that “one-size-fits-all” concepts of CSR should be abandoned.||Theoretical and lacks empirical evidence. Future research problems based on multiple approaches to studying CSR.|
|Valor (2005)||n/a||n/a||Explains model of CSR and movement towards greater corporate accountability. Explanatory in nature.||Theoretical/conceptual in nature. Provides no empirical evidence of research support.|
Milton Friedman (1970) responded to emerging new ideas among businessmen that organisations would have social responsibilities for the society. He claimed that only people can have responsibilities, not companies. By demonstrating the different roles of a corporate executive as either agent of the owner or as a private individual Friedman makes the point that in a free society dominated by the principles of capitalism, any person can do good on its own. Expecting social responsibility from a firm to the direct benefit of the society would reveal socialistic ideas. Even tax deductions caused by charity donations should be a private, not corporate decision. As Friedman favoured a free society with the underlying principles of capitalism in the USA he saw the one and only social responsibility of business in using its resources and increasing profits in accordance with the law within an open and competitive environment without deception and fraud. The paper faces some limitations as it is a response to emerging business discussions and therefore completely theoretical in nature and not based on any empirical study.
Wartick and Cochran (1985), in this article their concentration and focus is on the obstacles of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and they trace the progress of corporate social performance. CSR has three challenges to face, for instance, economic obligation, public responsibility, and social responsiveness. There is brief explanation of the social issues management, as a dimension of corporate social performance. Its outcome is that the corporate social performance model is important for business and society study and that it delivers the beginnings of a paradigm for the field. They put a lot of effort explain the three dimensional integrated model of CSR by discussing that CSR included dimensions of social accountability and a host of social problems. Wartick & Cochran concentrated on the challenges of economic obligation, public responsibility, and social responsiveness to integrate them into a general CSR model. Most significantly they noted foundation of corporate social performance of several potential ethical and philosophical, social contract theory and moral agency, but were not successful to develop this theoretical justification for corporate social performance.
Carroll (1991) presented his pyramid of corporate social responsibility in order to explain the component parts to executives and define the different levels of responsibility. His classification subdivides four levels of CSR where economic responsibilities describe the obligation of a company to maximise profit as this is the basis for all other CSR activities. In addition to the economic aim of an organisation legal obligations have to be followed as a fundamental requirement of the society against firms and represent the second layer of the pyramid of business responsibilities. Next are ethical responsibilities which are described as standard, norms, or stakeholders´ expectations in regards to a fair business behaviour beyond legal obligations. Philanthropic corporate actions encompass the society´s expectations toward engaging in human welfare or goodwill. The development of this model as a 4-level pyramid is also solely theoretical and is not based on empirical study. Carroll expects executives to use his model for conducting moral management.
Frederick (1994) describes and explains the shift from the philosophical-ethical concept of corporate social responsibility including the organisations´ obligation to work for social betterment (CSR1) to the action-oriented managerial concept of corporate social responsiveness (CSR2). Replacing the word responsibility by responsiveness was far more than just rephrasing. Responsiveness referred to the capacity of an organisation to respond to social pressures and became practical and managerial, whereas responsibility was related to amore philosophical obligation to conduct social activities for the society. It was no longer a question of whether to conduct CSR activities but how to do it in a fruitful, humane and practical way. CSR2 took place on micro and macro institutional dimensions. Also this paper is solely theoretical in nature and lacks of empirical evidence.
Archie B. Carroll, (1999), discusses the history of CSR and evolution of construct and empirical research and few definitions. Carroll explained that there is a spectacular history corresponding with the evolution of the concept and definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this article, she traces the evolution of the CSR construct beginning in the 1950s, which marks the modern era of CSR. Definitions extended during the 1960s and spread during the 1970s, in the 1980s there were fewer new definitions, more empirical research and a iterative themes began to mature. Corporate social performance, theory of stakeholder and business ethics is the alternative concepts. CSR changed into alternative thematic framework, in the 1990s, but keeps on to serve as a main design. In this article she arranged the literature review on a historical basis and treats the concept on the basis of decade by decade categories. She tracked the progress or corporate social responsibility as a concept, definitional construct, and appreciates what it meant in the past and still means today.
Lantos (2001) stated that altruistic CSR is moral for private or individuals but immoral for publicly owned companies main argument was that organisation have profit maximisation for their owners as a company goal but promoting societal welfare is not. Furthermore he argued that stockholders might probably not be wealthy and therefore expect the firm to make a reasonable profit stream for their future private needs such as retirement savings. Moreover he stated that charity donations would involuntarily charge stockholder (lower stock price), consumers (higher prices) and staff (lower wages). A very important argument he made is that companies need not give back to society s the firm pays tax for any benefits received. With his ideas he supported Friedman and others who suggested profit making as a major duty for publicly owned organisations. Also this paper lacks of empirical evidence as it is completely theoretical in nature.
McWilliams & Siegel 2001 analyzed the supply and demand model of CSR. Mainly based on this system we speculate that a firm’s level of CSR will depend on its size, level of variation, advertising of research and development, government sales, income of consumer, market condition of labor, and stage in industry life cycle. There is an ideal level of CSR which can be determine from these concepts, which can be determine through the analysis of cost benefit, and there is a natural link between CSR and financial performance. They supply some examples of CSR actions consist of going away from legal requirements in implementing advanced human resource management programs, developing non animal testing processes, recycling, subsiding pollution, supporting local business, and embodying products with social characteristics. They also restrict the scope of our analysis to satisfying the strong demand for CSR through the creation of product attributes that directly support social responsibility or that signal the firm’s commitment to CSR.
Jenson 2001, first sets a definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an extensive model of corporate governance and then addresses for a voluntary approach to CSR, meant as voluntary compliance with CSR strategic management standards, in terms of an economic theory of self-regulation formulated on the principles of social contract, reputation and reciprocal conformity. In this article he argues that extended fiduciary duties toward all the firm’s stakeholders are required because of the same neo-institutional analysis of the firm that justifies it as a unified system of governance of economic transactions formulated on authority relations and constant rights of control. The abuse of firm’s authority is the main factor vis-à-vis the shareholders who has incomplete contracts with the firm. Among the company’s stakeholders, the extended fiducially responsibilities are singled out from the social contract model.
Joyner & Payne (2002), explained that there is developing recognition that good ethics can have a positive economic influence on the performance of firms. Many statistics promote the assumption that ethics, values, integrity and responsibility are necessary in the modern workplace. For consumer groups and society at large, analysis has demonstrated that good ethics is good business. This research identifies and also traces the emergence and development within the business literature of the concepts of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility to express the increased focus that has been placed on these issues over time. They further clarified that two organizations that have effectively dealt with these obstacles were analyzed to identify the links among values, ethics, and corporate social responsibility as they are integrated into the culture and management of a firm. In this article they identified the existence and application of different values, ethics of business and corporate social responsibility actions within two organizations.
Jackson 2003, explained in his article that in spite of large-scale research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its association with economic and social performance, few studies have explored the institutional factors of CSR. This article compares the impact of environment of different institution by comparing the theory of neo institutional with the analysis of institution on European firms’ corporate social responsibility. To look at the database of European firms, it is clear that companies from the Anglo Saxon countries from the liberal market economy rate higher on most dimensions of CSR compare to the firms in the more coordinated market economy (CMEs) from the continental Europe. The view that CSR practices that are voluntary in liberal economies are an alternative for institutionalized forms of participation by stakeholders is supported by these results. In the meantime, however, the more institutionalized forms of coordination by the stakeholders are not mirrored by CSR. Rather, CSR takes on more absolute forms in CMEs. Our analysis also depicts that national institutional and sectoral-level aspects have an asymmetrical impact – firmly influencing the likelihood of firms adopting ‘minimum standards’ of CSR, but having little impact on the adoption of ‘best practices’.
Garriga & Mele (2004), The CSR field not presents a landscape of theories but also amplitude of approaches that are complex, unclear and controversial. An attempt to clarify the “mapping the territory” situation by categorizing the main theories behind CSR and the related approaches into four categories: 1) ethical theories that have their basis in the corporation’s ethical responsibilities to the society; 2) political theories which are concerned with a corporation’s power within a society and a proper use of that power in politics; 3) instrumental theories are those in which a corporation is viewed as a means of gaining wealth and its social activities are a way of gaining positive economic results; and 4) integrative theories in which the main focus for the corporation is satisfying social demands. Four dimensions connected to ethical values, political performance, profits and social demands are presented in each CSR theory when it is put in practice. The need for the development of a new theory on the relationship between the society and business which should intertwine these dimensions is suggested by the endings.
Prior, Surocca & Tribo, 2008, identified empirical research questions and issues and enquire the connectivity between income management and corporate social responsibility. The stakeholders collective interest can be damaged by the earnings management techniques; hence, managers deal with stakeholder policy and caution by relying on the CSR techniques, if they manipulate earnings. The findings from the research of this article is to utilize the archival data between 2002 and 2004 of sample 593 firms from twenty six countries, from which we measured that earnings management has positive influence on CSR. On financial performance, CSR and earnings management both has negative impact. Stakeholders agents can be managers according to general agency theory and CSR are the focus of earnings management literature which can be use to attain stakeholders support and give an opportunity to the managers for entrenchment that manipulate earnings.
Van Marrewijk (2003) explained that during the years, stakeholders have gained knowledge of CSR and CSR emphasis is increasing on the corporate agenda. Corporations are encouraged by stakeholders to use CSR while discourage them to communicate it. Great challenges for corporation indicate that attempts to prove to their skeptic audience implies by ‘catch 22’. The core focus of this master thesis is to evaluate the managerial job of communicating and engaging in CSR. The thesis’ main goal is to add to the limited amount of research available on CSR communication. This goal is achieved by examining the reasons behind why corporations take part in corporate social responsibility and how the corporate brand can play a key role in strategic CSR communication.
Valor (2005) defined several terms and definitions of social issues and business field that imply similar or identical meanings: corporate social responsibility, public responsibility, corporate social responsibilities, corporate societal responsibility, corporate social responsiveness, corporate social performance, corporate citizenship, business citizenship, Stakeholding Company, business ethics, sustainable company, and triple bottom-line approach. He Defined several terms and definitions of social issues and business field that imply similar or identical meanings: corporate social responsibility, public responsibility, corporate social responsibilities, corporate societal responsibility, corporate social responsiveness, corporate social performance, corporate citizenship, business citizenship, Stockholding Company, business ethics, sustainable company, and triple bottom-line approach. In the article reader will probably wonder whether geographical or historical reasons that can explain the preference for a particular name or whether academics, the need to make original contributions, create new names or just complicate the past concepts.
Since its original concept in the 1950s, CSR has evolved greatly over time. Early research on corporate social responsibility is solely theoretical in nature and lacks empirical evidence. Much of the early work on CSR focuses on defining the term, as well as its multiple levels and constructs. Interestingly, one early theorist, Friedman, strongly objected to CSR because he felt this was a move against the free trade strategy that regulated the business world. His views were quickly refuted by subsequent theorists who felt is was an industrial firm’s obligation to adapt to the social and environmental needs of its local population. Later research focused on methods to improve CSR, and some recent studies have investigated the relationship between CSR and profitability. In fact, Prior, Surocca, and Tribo (2008) found a positive correlation between factors that defined CSR and several measurements of profitability.
Table 3: References related to CSR motivation
|Number of participants||Methodology/
|Baron (2001)||n/a||n/a||Addresses issue of CSR by distinguishing among corporate redistribution as motivated by profit maximisation, altruism, and threats by activism. Private politics and CSR have direct effect on costs of the firm.||Theoretical, no empirical evidence.|
|Maignan & Ralston (2002)||GDP of four countries||ANOVA regarding profitability related to CSR implementation.||Compares extent and content of communications regarding CSR principles, processes, and motivations. Businesses in four countries do not display same eagerness to utilise CSR.||Correlation, small sample size, lacks theoretical foundation and fails to account for multiple business types and motivations.|
|Husted (2003)||n/a||n/a||Develops a framework to compare alternative modes of CSR governance and identifies key drivers that affect governances choice, including costs.||Accounts for just cost as a key motivator for CSR implementation, while failing to account for other factors. Theoretical.|
|Hemingway & Maclagan (2004)||n/a||n/a||Suggests that in so far as CSR initiatives represent individuals’ values, CSR becomes more greatly practices and corporation is not seen as agent.||Theoretical, lacks empirical evidence.|
|Graafland (2006)||111 Dutch firms||Regressions to test correlations among stakeholder motivations and views on CSR.||Intrinsic motives induce stronger involvement in CSR than extrinsic motives.||Correlation, no post hoc measurements to determine causation. Instruments not validated.|
|Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill (2006)||Study 1
28 m/f respondents
28 m/f respondents
randomised, between subjects ANOVA
Qualitative ratings of perceptions regarding firm
|Low-fit initiatives negatively impact consumer beliefs, attitudes, and intentions no matter what the firm’s motivation. High-fit initiatives that are profit-motivated have same impact.||Focuses on several firm-specific factors but lacks individual differences. Fails to account for some historical contexts of CSR. Not all results tied to theory.|
|Basil & Weber (2006)||6,065 respondents from national survey.||Multiple regressions of survey data to examine differences in support for corporate social responsibility based on personality traits.||Individuals motivated by a concern for appearances, egoistic enhancement motivation, and individual values, make purchases in support of corporate social responsibility.||Correlation in nature and does not provide post-hoc assessment of causative factors. Fails to account for larger corporate values influencing individual motivation.|
|Jenkins (2006)||24 European countries with firms using CSR strategies||Qualitative data derived from semi-structured interviews||Evidence that stakeholder theory may provide a framework in which SMEs and CSR can be understoond. Requires strong leadership from highly motivated individuals.||Qualitative and not causal in nature. Small, self-selecting sample.|
|Ven van de & Graafland (2006)||111 large and small Dutch firms and five stakeholder groups.||Multiple regressions to correlate positive strategic and moral view to CSR, and implementation of stakeholder-related aspects of CSR.||Results show that a majority of firms share a positive view of CSR in multiple dimensions. Managers share unique views, but a strong correlation exists between CSR performance and moral view on CSR.||Study is correlational in nature and does not provide cause and effect result. Small, potentially self-serving sample. Lacks strong theoretical basis.|
|Aguilera et al., (2007)||n/a||n/a||Provides a multilevel theoretical model to understand why organisations are increasingly engaging in CSR. Integrates variety of motivational factors.||Theoretical framework, no empirical evidence.|
|Jamali & Mirshak (2007)||n/a||n/a||Provides multicultural overview of motivational factors related to CSR. Proposes three-dimensional model of corporate performance.||Theoretical, lacks empirical evidence.|
Baron, 2001 offers in this article the private politics theory in which an activist plans to alter the production techniques of a company the redistribution reasons to the people who interests it support. The provider of the activist’s impact is the possibility of support for its cause by the public. The paper also discusses the problem of corporate social responsibility by distinguishing among corporate redistribution as motivated by profit maximization, altruism, and threats by the activist. Private politics and corporate social responsibility not only have a direct impact on the costs of the firm, but also have a strategic impact by changing the competitive positions affirms in an industry. The strategic association of private politics and corporate social responsibility for the strategies of competitors when either one of them are an activist campaign’s targets is examined from an integrated-strategy perspective by this paper. Implications for empirical analysis are derived from the theory.
Maignan & Ralston (2002), explained the content and extent of communications about CSR in a business in countries such as Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and United States is compared in this paper. More specifically, CSR principles‘ nature, stakeholder issues and processes explained in web pages are researched in this study. The results make it evident that the businesses in those four countries don’t employ diverse methods to show an image of social responsibility and they don’t give off the same eagerness to be visibily socially responsible. A higher level of enthusiasm for CSR has been displayed by academic researchers as well as business over the past several years. Research conducted recently indicates that CSR may prove to be a best way of enhancing a firm’s legitimacy among its stakeholders and for developing a positive image of being socially responsible. Consequencely, there are studies which have started researching the ways businesses use communications to emphasize their commitment to CSR.
Husted 2003, it is of the utmost importance for the senior management of a business to make all of their investments count within a competitive business environment where resources aren’t unlimited. Measuring the returns on an investment take place on all levels of business operations. A wide range of research has been conducted on discovering a link between an increase in business performance and CSR. Researchers have yet to examine the cost implications related to the various forms of governance used by companies to put their CSR activities in action; for instance, through outsourcing charitable contributions, developing as in-house program or creating a model that is more collaborative that provides benefits for the partner non-profit organization and the company. After carefully evaluating and examining these costs, the senior management will be able to select the structure of governance that will help increase the benefits they gain from CSR activities to the maximum. By deducting insights from organizational economics, this article creates a framework for the comparison of different means of CSR governance and identifies the key drivers that affect governance choice which include costs that are associated with it. What is of even more importance is that it provides the senior management with tool for decision-making that guide them when they are making vital choices as a way to add to the firm’s competitive advantage.
Hemingway & Maclagan (2004), described the reasons behind CSR are examined in this theoretical paper. The fundamental hypothesis behind this is that the commerical imperative isn’t the only drive behind the CSR decision-making in companies that are private sector; however, the CSR’s formal implementation and adoption by companies is related to the changes in an individual manager’s personal values. The values may be expressed through a chance of practice discretion which may come about in a wide variety of methods. The emphasis we place on personal initiative is meant to counter the inclination to view that corporations are agents and they may be meant to remind us that a difference can indeed be made by an individual.
Graafland (2006), explores the relationship between the religious beliefs and the dillemas that exeuctive in Germany have to face in the daily practices in the businesses. We have discovered that the frequency of dilemmas that come about is related to the different aspects of religious beliefs. Regardless this relationship, however, less than 20% of the dilemmas evaluated involve a religious standard. A majority of the complications come about due to conflicts between practical and moral standards. We have also discovered that 79% of the complications identified came to be due to conflicts between two or more of the executive’s internalized standards. The literature on the relationship between business conduct standards and religious beliefs is constantly growing. In order to avoice dissociated personality, moral stress and loss of personal integrity, it’s of the utmost importance for individuals to act according to their personal moral values. The ever-increasing desire to mesh personal and professional conduct standards is fuelling the relevance of personal belief systems and ethical standards in the organizational context.
Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill (2006) explained that the usage of CSR aims to induce customers and characterize product offering has evolved to become pretty usual. This study develops on evolving body of marketing literature by way of 2 examinations that have the purpose of managing a customer’s understanding of motivation, fit as well as timing of corporate social aim implanted inside promotions. We have discovered that low-fit initiatives conflictingly impact a customer’s view, behavior, and aim regardless what the firm’s influence. Meanwhile, high-fit initiatives that are influenced by profit have a similar affect. In addition, customers acknowledge the timing of the social initiative as a data cue, and exclusively the high-fit, proactive initiatives guided to an enhancement in a customer’s views, behavior, and aims. This study creates many offerings. In this primary analysis, we depict the discoveries of former scholarship on sponsorship and social marketing, which present that low-fit arrangements with fundamentally definite initiatives may conduct not positive observations of firms by customers.
Basil & WEBER (2006) identified that research currently available aims to evaluate the differences in support for CSR based upon specific personality traits. The secondary data collected from 6,065 respondents that are represented nationally were carefully studied. The results showed that individuals whose motivation was their appearance as well as individuals who were motivated because of their values make purchases in support of corporate philanthropy. Those whose motivation was their moral values viewed CSR as a normative requirement unlike those whose concern was their appearance. There are various behaviours that are classified as CSR. Among these are sponsoring charitable events, offering employee volunteerism programs, cause-related marketing, making charitable donations, demonstrating a commitment to health issues and having environmental initiatives. Companies are expected to be more socially responsible by an increasing number of consumers. They feel that a company should meet a society’s needs.
Jenkins, 2006 defined that CSR has commonly been the realm of the corporate area, acknowledgment of the developing importance of the Small and Medium Sized Enterprise (SME) area has guided to a prominence on their environmental as well as social influence, demonstrated by the rising number of initiatives directed at appointing SMEs in the CSR agenda. This analysis displays the discoveries from a UK research of socially responsible SMEs. The twenty-four corporations that were researched were selected as “specimen” of CSR in SMEs. The objective of this research hence being to advance comprehension of the limitations on as well as chances for CSR in SMEs through the investigation of ideal aspects in the research corporations. The outcomes of this research display a few of the ideal objectives required in order to attain social responsibility in SMEs, and start to supply wisdom that can be administered to develop learning in additional SMEs. Specifically, there exists proof that stakeholder idea can supply a framework in which SMEs and CSR may be comprehended. SMEs favor learning by means of networking and from their colleagues, so this may be a likely avenue for considerable SME assurance in CSR. This would need powerful management from people similarly as highly influenced owner-managers as well as from ideal corporations’ altogether.
Ven van de & Graafland (2006) explained that this passage talks about the connection amid administration’s perspective concerning corporate social responsibility, also known as CRS, and firms’ definite CRS attempts. It is concentrating on the practices of III Dutch firms with respect to 5 stakeholder groups-employees, consumers, suppliers, competitors and society at large-and their usage of organizational tools. We discover that the basic objective encourages a powerful participation in CSR than the extrinsic objective; this holds that CRS aids the financial achievement of the corporation in the long term. Specifically, this addresses the moral components of worker alliances and the application of tools in order to merge CRS in the corporation’s organization. The strategic and ethic objectives are correspondingly significant, with respect to customer relations. As regards to relations between suppliers and competitors and society, we don’t attain a chief relationship amid administration’s strategic and ethic perspective on CSR and absolute CRS conduct.
Aguilera et al., (2007), explained that if we provide multilevel theoretical model in order to gain a better understanding of the reason behind why business organizations are progressively taking part in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Our model integrate theories of corporate governance and organizational amends as well as assortments capitalism to debate the pressure that is put on organizations to engage in CSR through a variety of actors, each encouraged by influential, relational, and ethical aims. We shall come to an end by emphasizing practical questions for the purpose of future study and reviewing administrative associations. Economic advancement, through a clean world trading system is highly significant in order to take down poverty and ensure a more secure world for every individual now and for the coming generations.
Jamali & Mirshak (2007), An overview of CSR research in various contexts was provided and the different methodologies that were adopted were noted. For this research, two CSR conceptualizations of robust nature have been used and their integration has been explored. One of them is by Caroll (1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, The Academy of Management Review 4 (4), 497-505) while the other one is by Wood (1991, Corporate social formance Revisited’, The Academy of Management Review 16 (4), 691-717). The CSR approaches as well as the eight companies based in Lebanon whose philosophies are regarded as active in CSR are examined in a critical manner by this research through the use of a recently synthesized framework. The results have suggested the need for a focused, institutionalized and systematic means of approaching CSR. They have also revealed that the practice and understanding of CSR in Lebanon still has its basis in the philanthropic action.
Both individual and corporate motivation may play a role in the implementation of CSR practices. Research has indicated that individuals who are motivated by egoistic concerns and individual values are also more likely to make purchases in support of CSR factors. Furthermore, most firms share a positive view of CSR and are motivated to engage in CSR practices for multiple reasons. As prior research has indicated that a strong correlation exists between CSR and profitability, individuals within the firm, as well as stakeholders, are more motivated to maintain a relationship with a particular firm if it practices effective CSR practices.
CSR communication strategies
Table 4: References related to CSR communication
|Number of participants||Methodology/
|Esrock & Leichty (1998)||25 Fortune500 companies||Randomised sample, simple descriptive statistics||90% of random sample had Web pages, while 82% of sites addresses at least one corporate social responsibility issue.||Small sample, no inferential statistics used. Failed to account for company type and lacked theoretical basis.|
|Clark (2000)||n/a||n/a||Key differences revealed whereby effective communication methods are largely absent from CSR literature. Proposes communication management approach, which is linked to stakeholder analysis.||Literature review, qualitative in nature. Lacks theoretical basis or empirical evidence.|
|Frankental (2001)||n/a||n/a||Considers paradox of CSR and multiple contrasting views of consumer purchasing behavior related to CSR. Suggests CSR is mostly a PR construct to improve business.||Does not account for multiple individual motivations regarding CSR and lacks empirical evidence.|
|Mohr, Webb, & Harris (2001)||167 respondents||Qualitative semi-structured interviews||Consumer purchasing behavior ranges from unresponsive to highly responsive relative to CSR strategies implemented.||Doesn’t provide substantial addition to body of research. Lacks theoretical basis.|
|Sen & Bhattacharya (2001)||n/a||n/a||Both company-specific factors, such as CSR issues, and individual communicative factors, serve as key moderators of consumers’ responses to CSR||Qualitative/lacks empirical evidence.|
|Snider, Hill, 7 Martin (2003)||top 50 multinational firms on Forbes50||Qualitative analysis of website data.||Provides implications for CSR among managers of top 50 firms. Suggests stronger firms hold well-documented CSR strategies, which are present on Websites.||Qualitative, does not include other, smaller firms. Lacks empirical or theoretical support. Biased sample.|
|(Wagner, Lutz & Weitz 2009)||Study 1:
537 undergraduate students enrolled in marketing classes at a large public university
226 undergraduate students
611 undergraduate marketing students
294 undergraduate marketing students
151 undergraduate marketing students
structural equation modeling (SEM)
Study 2 and 3;
2X2X3 full-factorial experiment/design
Proactive communication strategy leads to higher levels of perceived hypocrisy than reactive strategy
Inconsistent information increase perception of hypocrisy, therefore CSR statements can be counterproductive
Perceived hypocrisy damages consumers’ attitudes toward firms by negatively affecting CSR beliefs and provides evidence for the mediating role of hypocrisy during information processing
Varying CSR policy statement abstractness acts to reduce the hidden risk of proactive communication strategies and can improve the effectiveness of a reactive strategy.
Inoculation communication strategy reduces perceived hypocrisy and minimises its negative consequences, regardless of whether the CSR strategy is proactive or reactive.
|Considers one context, retailing, and consumers living in the United States
Framework is limited in that it assumes a recursive, or unidirectional, nature of selected interrelationships among the variables of interest; potential non recursive effects and additional dependencies still need to be examined
External validity of the suggested dynamics of corporate hypocrisy perceptions needs to be strengthened by follow-up field research
|(Morsing & Schultz 2006)||n/a||n/a||When companies want to communicate with stakeholders about CSR, way vary substantially. Three communication strategies emerge, however. Managers need to move from informing and responding to involving stakeholders. Managers also need to expand role of stakeholders in corporate CSR processes.||Lacks empirical evidence, theoretical in nature.|
|(Moreno & Capriotti 2009)||A specific tool was developed to monitor the treatment of CSR/CC/SD issues on corporate web sites. Content analysis was applied to the complete spectrum of enterprises within the IBEX-35||Web has become an essential instrument for the communication of CSR/CC/SD issues, although its use is limited to certain content
Disparity between the volume of information and its dispersion
Communication is primarily unidirectional/expositive
Companies do not sufficiently use eternal criteria to guarantee the corporate behaviour they report
|The IBEX-35 company sample represents the companies on the Spanish Stock Exchange that have the most capital. Thus, its results cannot be extended to other top companies or to smaller firms|
|Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen (2010)||n/a||n/a||By engaging in CSR, companies can generate favourable stakeholder attitudes and better support behaviours, but also strengthen relationships. Effective communication is essential to this process.||Theoretical/conceptual in nature. No empirical support.|
|(Vanhamme & Grobben 2009))||125 Dutch consumers||Between-subjects experimental design regarding CSR involvement.||Use of CSR claims in crisis situations is more effective for companies with long CSR history.||Does not fully account for consumer scepticism. Self-selecting sample. Limited sample due to small CSR history in some companies.|
Esrock & Leichty (1998), analyze the relationship between media and corporate social responsibility. He summarizes the analysis literature that searches this relationship. Social science scholars and popular press have become focused on the internet and worldwide web because of its development. He examined the literature on how the news media cover corporate social responsibility (CSR), influence on the production of news about CSR, and news effects on CSR behavior. However, they recommend that organizations use web-based CSR communication to build policy agendas.This proactive use of the Internet to engage influential stakeholders and foster public consultation to shape policy is possible due to the interactive nature of the Web. Esrock and Leichty therefore use agenda setting principles as their explanatory device for the role of the Web in CSR communication. They evaluated various Fortune 500 companies disclosed that 90% of them have websites and at least one CSR issue was mentioned on 82% of their sites. It has been reported that only 30% of companies surveyed believed that working with the news media was helpful for their CSR initiatives. Community involvement, education and environmental concerns were addressed on over half of the WebPages. However, not very many corporations use their WebPages to keep track of the public’s opinions in regards to their policy positions.
Clark (2000), suggests that such public relations work is arranged with the boarder CSR literature that claims corporations can be responsive and involved as well as reactive to social needs. As such, there is considerable alignment in defining social responsibility between the principal stream CSR and the public relations literatures. Due to the abundant amounts of attention that has been given to ’big businesses‘ and, more specifically, pharmaceutical companies from the media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and governments, the pharmaceuitical sector has been increasingly pressured to respond to the CSR challenge. This challenge is set in the backdrop of an industry that is already dealing with a vast amount of pressure from the increasing competition and strategic consolidation. The need to effectively engage with a group of stakeholders is only a part of the burdern that addresses the CSR’s demands.
Frankental (2001), determine that according to discipline definition, public relations is centered on relationships and alignments between organizations and multiple groups and viewpoints within society. As a result, the notion of CSR, with its focus on a variety of social issues, is strongly aligned with how public relations describes itself.The obvious paradoxes in the ’corporate social responsibiliy‘ phrase are examined in this study. Amongst these paradoxes are the views the market has on the ethical stances the organizations should take, procedures of corporate governance, the lack of a clear-cut definition, denial or acceptance and the need for formal mehcanisms for taking responsibility and the placing and priortization that many organizations give to social responsibilities. This article makes it evident that until all of these paradoxes are addressed in a proper manner, CSR can be branded as an innovation of PR in a legitimate manner. It can gain real substance only when all of a company’s stakeholders are embarrased, if financial markets reward it, if the public is able scrutinize it, etc.
Mohr, Webb, & Harris (2001), According to a Gallup poll conducted in 1997, it was revealed that the public doesn’t have much confidence left in big businesses in comparison to other institutions such as public schools, newspapers, the police and military. The ciriminal justice system and Congress are the only institutions that rank lower than that. At this time, firms are trying to behave in ways that are socially responsible by making charitable donations, taking measures to protect the environment and working on finding solutions to social problems in the communities they are a part of. The amount of research conducted on what the general public expects from businesses in terms of social responsibilities isn’t abundant. Therefore, a clear understanding of what the public wants from the corporations isn’t available to those who run these corporations. They need to start by evaluating the literature availble that defines CSR, to define what Socially Responsible Consumer behavior means and to determine the predominance of socially responsible behvaior that already exists within the American society.
Sen & Bhattacharya 2001, measure the activities of CSR which makes CSR more obeserveable. More observable CSR outcomes can result in more stakeholder actions. By taking part in activities related to CSR, companies are able to create friendly stakeholder attitudes and favourable support behaviours. They will also be able to develop a positive image for the corporation, strengthen the relationship between the company and its stakeholders, and improve the advocacy behaviour of stakeholders. Nevertheless, the lack of knowledge and unfavourable attributions of stakeholders towards the CSR activities of a company are still critical obstacles for companies who are attempting to increase the benefits they receive from CSR activities. This brings the need for companies to effectively communicate with its stakeholders about CSR.
Snider, Hill, Martin (2003), identified that there is a tangible link between corporate social responsibility and stakeholder relations. While corporate social responsibility defines the relationship between business and the larger society in rather general terms, stakeholders’ relations management is regarding actually managing business society relations in a strategic way. The motivation behind this investigation was the lack of scholarships that evaluate the meaning of what communication between various stakeholders and the firms is in regards to their commitment to behavior that is considered socially responsible. To address this concern, qualitative research was conducted over the ethical, moral and legal statements available on the top 50 US and top 50 mulitnaitonal firms of non-US origin that are listed on the official Forbes Magazine website. They were evaluated within the context of the stakeholder theory.
Wagner, Lutz & Weitz 2009, Wagner, Lutz & Weitz 2009, discusses multiple CSR initiatives have primarily found company favouring effects of CSR from customers. So, presuming an awareness of a company’s CSR program, it was confirmed – in experimental settings- that it often has a favourable influence on customers’ attitudes such as towards the brand, towards the company. The effects communication strategies have on firms are used to check the effect such inconsistencies have on the consumers’ views on corporate hypocrisy and subsequent views about what the social responsibilities for a firm entail. The first study shows that a proactive strategy for communication leads to higher levels of hypocrisy that can be perceived rather than a reactive strategy in which the CSR statements for a firm follow the behaviour that is observed.
Morsing & Schultz 2006, indicated out to the need of interactively involving stakeholders and consumers correspondingly in the sense making process in order to be sure of that communicated CSR issues are persistent with consumer expectations. Stakeholders give strong, positive reactions when messages about ethically and socially responsible actions taken by corporations are brought up. The probable benefits businesses may gain from their external and internal communication of CSR efforts have been pointed out by research. Nonetheless, CSR is usually connected to corporate virtues of a positive nature and they indicate the status and activities of an organization with respect to its recognized obligations to society. Corporate CSR messages have also proven to be rather appealing to critical attention (e.g. Starbucks). Even more so, research has indicated that the stakeholders’ attention will increase as the companies disclose their social and ethical ambitions.
Mareno & Capriotti 2009, they explained that the most recognized benefit of the Internet for CSR communication is the huge impact on the dissemination of information about organizational responsibilities, both internally and externally, in a quick, easy, and controlled manner. Deepening the understanding of corporate WebPages is the main goal of this study. Included amongst these is corporate citizenship, sustainable development and corporate social responsibilities (CC/SD/CSR). It also tries to explain which stakeholders are privileged and the mechanisms of outer and inner which are referred to in these websites are identified. Tools have been developed in order to keep an eye on CC/SD/CSR and how these issues are treated on corporate websites.
Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen 2010, revealed that companies really need to work hard to communicate their corporate responsibility sufficiently. At the same time, marketing research usually points to how consumers have little knowledge about CSR initiatives and, hence, there is a need for more communication. By taking part in activities related to CSR, companies are able to create friendly stakeholder attitudes and favourable s
upport behaviours. They will also be able to develop a positive image for the corporation, strengthen the relationship between the company and its stakeholders, and improve the advocacy behaviour of stakeholders. Nevertheless, the lack of knowledge and unfavourable attributions of stakeholders towards the CSR activities of a company are still critical obstacles for companies who are attempting to increase the benefits they receive from CSR activities. This brings the need for companies to effectively communicate with its stakeholders about CSR to light.
(Vanhamme & Grobben 2009), Effective communication is vital during corporate crises in order to shelter or fix the reputation of a company. Using CSR claims may prove to be an essential tool for companies working on countering the negative effects of the crisis. However, knowledge of these tools’ effectiveness isn’t widely known and not many studies exist that suggest the use of CSR communication during times like these. In order to change this, this study researches the extent of a company’s involvement in matters relating to CSR when CSR claims are implemented during crisis communication as a way of countering negative publicity. Using these claims during such tense times has proven to be more beneficial for companies that have a long history of CSR rather than those who have a shorter history. The heart of this phenomenon would be the consumer scepticism.
Communication is essential to informing government and the public regarding CSR initiatives. Research has demonstrated that older models of communication with respect to CSR have consisted of strictly informational and responsive models. Communications that emphasise involving stakeholders regarding corporate social responsibility initiatives can help reduce perceived hypocrisy – a state that severely damages an industrial firm’s reputation and profitability. Consumers’ attitudes are largely based on a firm’s communication strategies, so effective involvement in the communication process and proactive methods of providing information can help reduce misperceptions and increase profitability. Among the many methods that can enhance the communication process is the Internet. Because of the large volumes of information needed to relay corporate social responsibility initiatives, the Internet serves as an adequate platform to ensure consistency and accuracy. Some disparity may exist, however, between the volume if information and its dispersion when using the Internet. Furthermore, communication tends to be unidirectional and fails to accomplish the goals of involving stakeholders in the communication process with this strategy. External criteria are also needed on top of web-based communication strategies to ensure the appropriate message is delivered.
Cultural influences on CSR
Table 5: References related to cultural influences on CSR
|Number of participants||Methodology/
|Lewis & Unerman (1999)||n/a||n/a||Relates ethics to CSR polices and ties these into varying cultural perspectives on ethics. Argues in favor of reasoned form of relativism.||Lacks empirical evidence, theoretical in nature.|
|Blowfield & Frynas (2005)||n/a||n/a||Multi-component analysis of CSR development in the new business world. Provides emerging themes of CSR for future research from a worldwide perspective.||Lacks empirical evidence, summary of ther research articles.|
|Branco & Rodrigues (2006)||n/a||n/a||Provides proposition for resource-based perspective on CSR throughout the world. CSR tied into a local economy’s resources and ethical standards.||Theoretical, lacks empirical evidence. Does not account for common research-based perspectives on CSR despite varying resources and ethics.|
|Doh & Guay (2006)||n/a||n/a||Provides evidence of divergent CSR perspectives between Europe and North America. Suggests CSR and economic performance are not mutually exclusive. Varies by institution.||Fails to account for convergence in institutional environment for policy-making. Lukewarm support of some CSR strategies throughout world. Lacks clear understanding of institutional differences in policy-making.|
|Waldman et al., (2006)||561 firms in 15 countries||Longitudinal cross-sectional examination of leadership variables associated wth CSR values.||Cultural dimensions of institutional collectivism and power distance predict social responsibility values on part of top management team members. CEO visionary leadership and integrity also uniquely predictive of such values.||Fails to account for changing worldwide perspectives of corporate social responsibility over time and multiple perspectives of CSR based on current population.|
|Visser (2006)||n/a||n/a||A critical perspective of CSR has emerged, as well as a broader worldwide scope and content of mainstream CSR due to enhanced empirical research. This has contributed to maturation of concept of CSR throughout the world.||Failure to critically engage with role of government produces a bottom-up approach to CSR analysis.|
|Collier & Esteban (2007)||n/a||Literature review||Employee attitudes and behaviors are effected by organisational culture and climate, dependent on CSR policies and values. Motivation and commitment affected by extent to which individuals adapt to CSR policy.||Theoretical, lacks empirical evidence. Highly focused on recent research and fails to account for historical contexts.|
|Ringov (2007)||463 firms in 23 countries||Theoretical propositision, and least squared regressions models||Proposed that countries with higher levels of power distance, individualism, and masculinity have lower levels of social and environmental performance. Power distance and masculinity have significant negative effect on social and environmental performance.||Regressions model does not provide causal evidence of contributing factors of social and environmental performance.|
|Campbell (2007)||n/a||n/a||Provides institutional theory of CSR with propositions of situations that govern the need for CSR behavior.||Theoretical. Fails to account for varying worldwide perspectives, ethics, and resources.|
|Basu & Palazzo (2008)||n/a||n/a||Proposes model of organisational sensemaking explaining how managers react and adjust to CSR policies.||Theoretical, lacks empirical evidence.|
Lewis & Unerman (1999), A wide variety of research conducted over CSR is over how organizations might account for their negative and positive impacts on society. In most of these studies, an understanding of what members of society consider negative is clear. The main moral philosophy question is whether ethical rules used for determining what is bad or good are absolute or if they vary relative to individual beliefs or differences in culture. If ethics are relative then what is considered bad at one point by society, an individual or stakeholder group may not be considered bad by other individuals, stakeholder groups and societies at another point in time. CSR that are directed towards these moral values will vary similarly. This paper supports a reasoned form of relativism and argues on its behalf. It doesn’t adhere that the only reason for the differences in CSR practices is ethical relativism; however, it does maintain that it is a significant cause for such differences and tries to make a reasonable argument as to what is viewed as good or bad within a society as a major influence on CSR as well as a method of increasing the moral debate on such a topic.
Blowfield & Frynas (2005), discusses that the corporate social responsibility in developing countries has several features. They also discusses that this special issue’s theme is about the role CSR plays in the developing world and the requirement for more critical point of views to comprehend what it does and its value for the poor and marginalized individuals in those countries. A wide variety of claims have been issued about CSR’s contribution and how it can help allievate poverty and endorse other goals for development. Nonetheless, this issue’s contributors have concluded that such claims are not warranted by the current CSR approaches. The need for an approach that is critical to the limitations and strenghts of CSR, one that is able to ask the questions that have been neglected or unasked so far, is made evident by their work. We used our fellow contributors‘ work along with that of others who had the invitation to comment to trace what such an approach might be like in this editorial.
Branco & Rodrigues (2006), explained that an underlying assumption here is that an organization can attract better employees because of their good reputation adn that CSR increases current employees‘ motivation to work for the organization. the Internet and annual reports are compared by this study as media of social responsibility disclosure (SRD). It also evaluates the influences behind such disclosures. It analyzed SRD on the Internet by Portuguese listed companies in 2004 in comparison to the Internet and annual reports in 2003 as disclosure media. A multi-theoretical framework lens is used to interpret the results. According to the framework they have chosen, the social responsibility data of a company is disclosed by it in order to show a socially responsible image so that they can justify their actions to the stockholder groups and have leverage over the external views of reputation. The results indicate that a perspective based on resources and a theoretical framework combining ligitimacy theory give an explanatory foundation for SRD by companies listed in Portuguese.
Doh & Guay 2006, This article provides an assessment and re-specification of institutional literature related to a multinational corporation‘s (MNCs) communication as well as international businesses and institutions. Deriving from research conducted in political economies and economic sociology, in the article authors suggested an original outlook on the influence MNC has on transnational instituion building. The reason they provided is that, by either the creation of or participation in policy networks within transnational economic and social systems, MNCs try to find ways of influencing institutional development. Concerns to organizational culture, such as visibility or a commitment to stakeholder dialogue also plays a determining role. NGOs’ attempts to exploit these numerous vulnerabilities are limited and facilitated by the distinct national and cultural context of the corporation or industry being targeted.For gaining a better understanding of the extent of interactions amongst MNCs and the institutional fields they operate in, the policy network perspective is a useful and productive means of analysis.
Waldman et al., (2006), The cultural and leadership factors related with CSR values that managers administer in the decision-making process are examined in this paper.They have evaluated data collected from 561 firms situated in 15 different countries on 5 continents in order to exemplify how institutional collectivism’s cultural factors and power distance predict values of social responsibility on the part of top members of the management team. CEO integrity and visionary leadership were also foretelling of values such as these.
Visser (2006), The tone for the development of a CSR agenda focused on the South was set by the cristicism that the mainstream CSR agenda was mostly motivated by the Western countries‘ concerns and priorities and, therefore, wasn’t sensitive towards local priorities and unintentionally harmed an individual’s chances of sustaining a proper livelihood in countries that are developing. Three main themes have dominated the increasing critical CSR agenda focused on the South due to efforts at broadening the content and scope of the mainstream CSR practice and discourse. This critical perspective’s development has made contributions to the growth of a contemporary CSR agenda. It has also created rich insights in regards to the limitations and strenghts of CSR practics in countries that are still developing. The developing Southern perspective of CSR hasn’t achieved its full potential yet because it has failed to critically interact with the government’s role, avoid a piecemeal research concentration and adopt a bottom-up aproach to analyzing CSR. Methods for addressing these shortcomings are suggested in this article and contributions for strenghtening the emerging critical research agenda in Africa for CSR have been made.
Collier & Esteban (2007), suggest that, in turn, a company’s success in delivering its corporate social responsiblity initiatives might depend on employee engagement and willingness to support CSR implementation programmes. They ask how employees might be motivated to gain commitment to these CSR objectives.This paper evaluates existing research to determine what two types of dimensions may influence an employee’s motivation and commitment towards a buy-in for CSR. The first of these is contextual. The organizational climate and culture, whether the CSR policies are couched in terms values and compliance, and whether these policies are intertwined into business processes or simply an add-on, which may serve as window-dressing, affect the attitudes and behaviors of employees. The second set of factors is perceptual. The lengths to which motivation and commitment can align the organization’s personal identiy and image will determine how much they are affected.
Ringov (2007), The authors make the suggestion that companies situated in countries that are characterized by increased levels of individualism, power distance, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance show decreased levels of environmental and social performance. Practical tests of these suggestions are performed via pooled ordinary least squares regression models using an orginal set of data collected from 463 firms in 23 Asian, European and North American countries. Corporate social and environmental performances are impacted in a negative manner due to masculinity and power distance. However, cultural differences, with respect to individualism and uncertainty avoidance, don’t have a significant effect.
Campbell (2007), has suggested an institutional theory of CSR that contains a chain of recommendations that specify the circumstances under which corporations are most likely to act in ways that are socially responsible. The reason that the association between corporate behavior and basic economic conditions is arbitrated by various institutional circumstances: the presense of nongovernmental and other independent organization that closely watch corporate behvaior, private and public regulations, institutionalized standards in regards to the proper corporate behavior, organized dialect amongst corporations and their stakeholders, and associative behavior amongst corporations themselves.
Basu & Palazzo (2008), have suggested that there is a need to go beyond analyzing CSR by examining CSR, and instead study the processes that guide an organization’s sens making as they pertain to relationships with stakeholers and the world at large. In comparison to CSR models that are based on content, authors suggest a process model of organizational sense making that breaks down how managers tend to discuss, act and think in regards to their main stakeholders as well as the world as a whole. Identifying interrelationship patterns amongst these measures might enhance the understanding of the impact CSR has on a firm and form a research agenda that connects CSR characters to important organizational features.
Cultural influences play a large role in defining CSR across the globe. Beyond just the industrialized firms of Europe, CSR has important underpinnings in African and other undeveloped economies. Cultural dimensions of institutional collectivism in these underdeveloped economies are in stark contrast to the individualism of Western Europe. Such cultural dimensions can be used to help predict social responsibility values in top management team members. However, the changing definition of CSR makes it difficult to research this subject. Industrial academics must continue to critically evaluate and analyse multiple perspectives of CSR and take into account the broad worldwide scope of this construct. The increasing body of research that has emerged in recent years has helped combine multiple social and cultural factors defining CSR.
Summary of relevant points from the literature review
CSR refers to a form of regulate that firms incorporate into their business models. This construct helps firms comply with social, political, and environmental standards with respect to the local economy. The primary aim of CSR is to produce a positive impact on the surrounding government and populous through its business practices. Most industrial firms maintain corporate social responsibility policies in their mission statements.
Multiple approaches exist for defining and practicing corporate social responsibility. Dominant in Europe and Canada are Anglo-Saxon approaches, which utilize very heterogeneous policy standards. Philanthropic approaches are more common throughout the rest of the world. Many organizations disregard philanthropic approaches, however, because the donation of money to charities does not help build skills necessary to promote a self-sufficient economy.
Businesses must practice effective accounting standards to ensure corporate social responsibility is met and appeases the stakeholders. Communication is essential in this process, and allows for the thorough auditing and reporting of such CSR aims. Guidelines exist throughout Europe to ensure policy is met, which include ethical and financial standards.
Research has demonstrated that CSR is associated with a number of benefits beyond just profitability. Such benefits include human resources, risk management practices, and brand differentiation. These benefits vary depending on the nature of the organization and such benefits are often difficult to measure.
A growing interest in motivational theories of CSR has led to an increasing body of literature in this regard. Both individual and corporate factors may influence motivation to engage in CSR practices. Much of the research related to CSR motivation relates to consumer behaviors and the desire to purchase products from a company based on its CSR efforts. The research is somewhat equivocal in this regard, although tends to favor CSR practices over not engaging in standard CSR policy.
Some critics of CSR argue that the purpose of a business is not to serve the public, but to maintain a profit. The implementation of CSR standards may result in questionable motives and practices with respect to implementing public programs and charities. Furthermore, an emerging concept in the business world, known as ethical consumerism, suggests that the rise in global population places pressure on businesses to meet environmental policies and consumers on this factor largely make decisions alone.
nochmal den Bogen schlagen von der Lit Rev. zu den objectives. Siehe kopiertes Beispiel von David.
Wartick, S. and Cochran, P. (1985), “Evolution of corporate social performance model”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 758-69.
Carroll, A.B. 1999, “Corporate social responsibility”, Business and Society, vol. 38, 1. 3, pp. 268-295
McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. 2001, “Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective”, Academy of Management.The Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 117-127.
Jenson, L. 2001, “A Social Contract Account for CSR as an Extended Model of Corporate Governance (I): Rational Bargaining and Justification”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 259-281.
Joyner, B. E. and D. Payne: 2002, ‘Evolution and Implementation:A Study of Values, Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 41(4), 297–311.
Jackson, G. & Apostolakou, A. 2010, “Corporate Social Responsibility in Western Europe: An Institutional Mirror or Substitute?”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 371-394.
Garriga, E. & Domènec Melé 2004, “Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 53, no. 1-2, pp. 51-71.
Corporate Governance : an International Review, 2008, v. 16, n. 3, p. 160-177
Marcel, v.M. 2003, “Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 95-105.
Valor, C.: 2005, _Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability _, Business and Society Review 110(2), 191–212
Baron, D. P., 2001, Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and integrated strategy. Vol.10, Issue 1, pp. 7-45
Maignan, I. & Ralston, D.A. 2002, “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses self-presentations”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 497-514.
Husted, B. W., 2003, Governance Choices for Corporate Social Responsibility: to contribute, collaborate or internalize?, vol. 36, Issue 5. Pp. 481-498
Hemingway, C.A. and Maclagan, P.,W., 2004. Managers Personal Values as Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility.Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), pp. 33-44.
Graafland, J., Kaptein, M. and Corrie Mazereeuw-Van Der, D.S., 2006.
Business Dilemmas and Religious Belief: An Explorative Study among Dutch Executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), pp. 53-70.
Becker-Olsen, K., Cudmore, B.A. and HILL, R.P., 2006. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), pp. 46-53.
BASIL, D.Z. and WEBER, D., 2006. Values motivation and concern for appearances: the effect of personality traits on responses to corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1), pp. 61-72.
Jenkins, H. 2006, “Small Business Champions for Corporate Social Responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 241-256.
Graafland, J. & van, d.V. 2006, “Strategic and Moral Motivation for Corporate Social Responsibility*”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, , no. 22, pp. 111-123.
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. & Ganapathi, J. 2007, “Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility: a Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organizations”, Academy of Management.The Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 836-863.
Jamali, D. & Mirshak, R. 2007, “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 243-262.
Esrock, S. L.; Leichty, G. B., 1998, Social responsibility and corporate web pages: self-presentation or agenda-setting, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24, Issue 3, pages 305-319
Clark, C. (2000), Difference Between Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility: an Analysis’ Public Relations Review. 26 (3): 363-80
Frankental, P. 2001, “Corporate social responsibility – a PR invention?”, Corporate Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 18-23.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. and Harris, K.E. (2001), “Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-72.
Sen, S. & Bhattacharya, C.B. 2001, “Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility”, JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 225-243.
Snider, J, Hill, RP, Martin, D, Snider, J 2003 “Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world’s most successful firms” Journal of Business Ethics 48 2 175-187
Wagner, T.; Lutz, R. J.; Weitz, B. A., (2009), Corporate Hypocrisy: Overcoming the Threat of Inconsistent Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions. American Marketing Association, Journal Of Marketing, Vol. 73, pp 77-91
Morsing, M; Schultz, M., (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: a European Review, Vol. 15 No. 4 .
Moreno, A. & Capriotti, P. 2009, “Communicating CSR, citizenship and sustainability on the web”, Journal of Communication Management, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 157-175.
Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C. B.; Sen, S., 2010, Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International Journal of Management Reviews. Vol. 12, Issue 1 , pp 8-19
Vanhamme, J.; Grobben, B., (2009), Too Good to be True. The Effectiveness of CSR History in Countering Negative Publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, Supplement 2, pp 273-283
Lewis, L., & Unerman, J. (1999). Ethical relativism: A reason for differences in corporate social reporting? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10, 521–547.
BLOWFIELD, M. & Frynas, J.G. 2005, “EditorialSetting new agendas: critical perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the developing world”, International Affairs, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 499-513.
Branco, M.C. & Rodrigues, L. 2008, “Factors Influencing Social Responsibility Disclosure by Portuguese Companies”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 685-701.
Dahan, N., Doh, J. & Guay, T. 2006, “The role of multinational corporations in transnational institution building: A policy network perspective”, Human Relations, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 1571-1600.
Waldman, D.A., Sully, d.L., Washburn, N., House, R.J., Adetoun, B., Barrasa, A., Bobina, M., Bodur, M., Yi-Jung, C., Debbarma, S., Dorfman, P., Dzuvichu,
R.R., Evcimen, I., Fu, P. & Grachev, M. 2006, “Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GLOBE study of 15 countries”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 823-837.
Visser, W., 2006, Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. Volume: 11, Issue: 1, Publisher: Oxford University Press, Pages: 473-499
Collier, J.; Esteban, R., 2007, Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment, Business ethics: A European Review, vol. 16, issue 1, pp. 19-33
Ringov, D., 2007, The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Vol. 7 Issue 4, pp. 476-485
Campbell, J. L., 2007, Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutuional theory of corporate social responsibility. The academy of management review, vol. 32, number 3.
Basu, K.; Palazzo, G., 2007, Corporate social responsibility: a process model of sensemaking. Athe academy of management review. Vol. 33, number 1, pp.122-136
Time is precious
don’t waste it!