Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1Definition
2Consumer perspectives
3Approaches
3.1Cost-benefit analysis
4Scope
o
4.1Supply chain
5Implementation
5.1Engagement plan
5.3Ethics training
5.4Common actions
5.5Social license
6.2Human resources
6.3Risk management
6.4Brand differentiation
6.5Reduced scrutiny
6.6Supplier relations
7.1Nature of business
7.2Motives
7.3Misdirection
7.4Controversial industries
9Stakeholder influence
o
9.1Ethical consumerism
9.3Shareholder advocacy
9.5Public policies
10Geography
o
11See also
12References
12.1Notes
12.2Sources
13External links
Definition[edit]
The term "corporate social responsibility" became popular in the 1960s and has remained a term
used indiscriminately by many to cover legal and moral responsibility more narrowly construed. [9]
Business Dictionary defines CSR as "A companys sense of responsibility towards the community
and environment (both ecological and social) in which it operates. Companies express this
citizenship (1) through their waste and pollution reduction processes, (2) by contributing educational
and social programs and (3) by earning adequate returns on the employed resources." [10]
A broader definition expands from a focus on stakeholders to include philanthropy and volunteering.
[11]
Consumer perspectives[edit]
Most consumers agree that while achieving business targets, companies should do CSR at the
same time.[12] Most consumers believe companies doing charity will receive a positive response.
[13]
Somerville also found that consumers are loyal and willing to spend more on retailers that support
charity. Consumers also believe that retailers selling local products will gain loyalty.[14] Smith (2013)
[15]
shares the belief that marketing local products will gain consumer trust. However, environmental
efforts are receiving negative views given the belief that this would affect customer service.
[14]
Oppewal et al. (2006) found that not all CSR activities are attractive to consumers. [16] They
recommended that retailers focus on one activity.[17] Becker-Olsen (2006)[18] found that if the social
initiative done by the company is not aligned with other company goals it will have a negative impact.
Mohr et al.(2001)[19] and Groza et al. (2011) [20] also emphasise the importance of reaching the
consumer.
Approaches[edit]
CSR Approaches
Some commentators have identified a difference between the Canadian (Montreal school of CSR),
theContinental European and the Anglo-Saxon approaches to CSR.[21] It is said that for Chinese
consumers, a socially responsible company makes safe, high-quality products; for Germans it
provides secure employment; in South Africa it makes a positive contribution to social needs such as
health care and education.[22] And even within Europe the discussion about CSR is very
heterogeneous.[23]
A more common approach to CSR is corporate philanthropy. This includes monetary donations and
aid given to nonprofit organizations and communities. Donations are made in areas such as the arts,
education, housing, health, social welfare and the environment, among others, but excluding political
contributions and commercial event sponsorship.[24]
Another approach to CSR is to incorporate the CSR strategy directly into operations. For instance,
procurement of Fair Trade tea and coffee.
Creating Shared Value, or CSV is based on the idea that corporate success and social welfare are
interdependent. A business needs a healthy, educated workforce, sustainable resources and adept
government to compete effectively. For society to thrive, profitable and competitive businesses must
be developed and supported to create income, wealth, tax revenues and philanthropy. The Harvard
Business Review article Strategy & Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and
Corporate Social Responsibility provided examples of companies that have developed deep linkages
between their business strategies and CSR.[25] CSV acknowledges trade-offs between short-term
profitability and social or environmental goals, but emphasizes the opportunities for competitive
advantage from building a social value proposition into corporate strategy. CSV gives the impression
that only two stakeholders are important - shareholders and consumers.
Many companies employ benchmarking to assess their CSR policy, implementation and
effectiveness. Benchmarking involves reviewing competitor initiatives, as well as measuring and
evaluating the impact that those policies have on society and the environment, and how others
perceive competitor CSR strategy.[26]
Cost-benefit analysis[edit]
In competitive markets cost-benefit analysis of CSR initiatives, can be examined using a resourcebased view (RBV). According to Barney (1990) "formulation of the RBV, sustainable competitive
advantage requires that resources be valuable (V), rare (R), inimitable (I) and non-substitutable
(S)."[27][28] A firm introducing a CSR-based strategy might only sustain high returns on their investment
if their CSR-based strategy could not be copied (I). However, should competitors imitate such a
strategy, that might increase overall social benefits. Firms that choose CSR for strategic financial
gain are also acting responsibly.[3]
RBV presumes that firms are bundles of heterogeneous resources and capabilities that are
imperfectly mobile across firms. This imperfect mobility can produce competitive advantages for
firms that acquire immobile resources. McWilliams and Siegel (2001) examined CSR activities and
attributes as a differentiation strategy. They concluded that managers can determine the appropriate
level of investment in CSR by conducting cost benefit analysis in the same way that they analyze
other investments.
Reinhardt (1998) found that a firm engaging in a CSR-based strategy could only sustain an
abnormal return if it could prevent competitors from imitating its strategy.[29]
Scope[edit]
Initially, CSR emphasized the official behavior of individual firms. Later, it expanded to include
supplier behavior and the uses to which products were put and how they were disposed of after they
lost value.
Supply chain[edit]
Incidents like the 2013 Savar building collapse pushed companies to consider how the behavior of
their suppliers impacted their overall impact on society. Irresponsible behavior reflected on both the
misbehaving firm, but also on its corporate customers. Supply chain management expanded to
consider the CSR context. Wieland and Handfield (2013) suggested that companies need to include
social responsibility in their reviews of component quality. They highlighted the use of technology in
improving visibility across thesupply chain.[30]
Implementation[edit]
CSR may be based within the human resources, business development or public
relations departments of an organisation,[11] or may be a separate unit reporting to the CEO or
the board of directors. Some companies approach CSR without a clearly defined team or
programme. For example, see the ethnographic study of social responsibility as a subjective state,
conducted in a UK-based multi-national corporation. Results revealed four different modes of moral
commitment to social responsibility and sustainability, with the 'Conformist' mode representing the
majority of employees. Some of these were in formal CSR roles. Interestingly, support was found for
the notion of corporate social entrepreneurship: a minority of employees, driven by their dominant
self-transcendent values. These individuals had enlarged their own job roles of their own volition and
were progressing a social agenda, in addition to their formal job role to achieve the company's profit
targets. [31]
Engagement plan[edit]
An engagement plan can assist in reaching a desired audience. A corporate social responsibility
individual or team plans the goals and objectives of the organization. As with any corporate activity, a
defined budget demonstrates commitment and scales the program's relative importance.
AccountAbility's AA1000 standard, based on John Elkington's triple bottom line (3BL)
reporting
The Prince's Accounting for Sustainability Project's Connected Reporting Framework [34]
The Fair Labor Association conducts audits based on its Workplace Code of Conduct and
posts audit results on the FLA website.
The Fair Wear Foundation verifies labour conditions in companies' supply chains, using
interdisciplinary auditing teams.
The FTSE Group publishes the FTSE4Good Index, an evaluation of CSR performance of
companies.
In nations such as France, legal requirements for social accounting, auditing and reporting exist,
though international or national agreement on meaningful measurements of social and
environmental performance has not been achieved. Many companies produce externally audited
annual reports that cover Sustainable Development and CSR issues ("Triple Bottom Line Reports"),
but the reports vary widely in format, style, and evaluation methodology (even within the same
industry). Critics dismiss these reports as lip service, citing examples such as Enron's yearly
"Corporate Responsibility Annual Report" and tobacco companies' social reports.
In South Africa, as of June 2010, all companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE)
were required to produce an integrated report in place of an annual financial report and sustainability
report.[43] An integrated report reviews environmental, social and economic performance alongside
financial performance. This requirement was implemented in the absence of formal or legal
standards. An Integrated Reporting Committee (IRC) was established to issue guidelines for good
practice.
Ethics training[edit]
The rise of ethics training inside corporations, some of it required by government regulation, has
helped CSR to spread. The aim of such training is to help employees make ethical decisions when
the answers are unclear.[44] The most direct benefit is reducing the likelihood of "dirty hands",[45] fines
and damaged reputations for breaching laws or moral norms. Organizations see increased
employee loyalty and pride in the organization.[46]
Common actions[edit]
Community involvement: This can include raising money for local charities, providing
volunteers, sponsoring local events, employing local workers, supporting local economic growth,
engaging in fair trade practices, etc.[51][52]
Ethical marketing: Companies that ethically market to consumers are placing a higher value
on their customers and respecting them as people who are ends in themselves. They do not try
to manipulate or falsely advertise to potential consumers. This is important for companies that
want to be viewed as ethical.
Social license[edit]
Social license refers to a local communitys acceptance or approval of a company. Social license
exists outside formal regulatory processes. Social license can nevertheless be acquired through
timely and effective communication, meaningful dialogue and ethical and responsible behavior.
Displaying commitment to CSR is one way to achieve social license, by enhancing a companys
reputation.[53]
Human resources[edit]
A CSR program can be an aid to recruitment and retention,[60][61] particularly within the
competitive graduate student market. Potential recruits often consider a firm's CSR policy. CSR can
also help improve the perception of a company among its staff, particularly when staff can become
involved through payroll giving, fundraising activities or community volunteering. CSR has been
credited with encouraging customer orientation among customer-facing employees. [62]
Risk management[edit]
Managing risk is an important executive responsibility. Reputations that take decades to build up can
be ruined in hours through corruption scandals or environmental accidents. [63] These draw unwanted
attention from regulators, courts, governments and media. CSR can limit these risks. [64]
Brand differentiation[edit]
CSR can help build customer loyalty based on distinctive ethical values. [65] Some companies use
their commitment to CSR as their primary positioning tool, e.g., The Co-operative Group, The Body
Shop and American Apparel[66]
Some companies use CSR methodologies as a strategic tactic to gain public support for their
presence in global markets, helping them sustain a competitive advantage by using their social
contributions as another form of advertising.[67]
Reduced scrutiny[edit]
Corporations are keen to avoid interference in their business through taxation and/or regulations. A
CSR program can persuade governments and the public that a company takes health and safety,
diversity and the environment seriously, reducing the likelihood that company practices will be
closely monitored.
Supplier relations[edit]
Appropriate CSR programs can increase the attractiveness of supplier firms to potential customer
corporations. E.g., a fashion merchandiser may find value in an overseas manufacturer that uses
CSR to establish a positive imageand to reduce the risks of bad publicity from uncovered
misbehavior.
Nature of business[edit]
Milton Friedman and others argued that a corporation's purpose is to maximize returns to its
shareholders and that obeying the laws of the jurisdictions within which it operates constitutes
socially responsible behavior.[68]
While some CSR supporters claim that companies practicing CSR, especially in developing
countries, are less likely to exploit workers and communities, critics claim that CSR itself imposes
outside values on local communities with unpredictable outcomes.[69]
Better governmental regulation and enforcement, rather than voluntary measures, are an alternative
to CSR that moves decision-making and resource allocation from public to private bodies.
[70]
However, critics claim that effective CSR must be voluntary as mandatory social responsibility
programs regulated by the government interferes with peoples own plans and preferences, distorts
the allocation of resources, and increases the likelihood of irresponsible decisions. [71]
Motives[edit]
Some critics believe that CSR programs are undertaken by companies to distract the public from
ethical questions posed by their core operations. They argue that the reputational benefits that CSR
companies receive (cited above as a benefit to the corporation) demonstrate the hypocrisy of the
approach.[73]
Misdirection[edit]
Another concern is that sometimes companies use CSR to direct public attention away from other,
harmful business practices. For example, McDonald's Corporation positioned its association
with Ronald McDonald House as CSR[74] while its meals have been accused of promoting poor eating
habits.[75]
Controversial industries[edit]
Industries such as tobacco, alcohol or munitions firms make products that damage their consumers
and/or the environment. Such firms may engage in the same philanthropic activities as those in other
industries. This duality complicates assessments of such firms with respect to CSR. [76]
mainstream politicians of India point out that this can lead to a dangerous precedent because the
company got actively involved in CSR only after they were caught red-handed in polluting the
village. [77]
Stakeholder influence[edit]
One motivation for corporations to adopt CSR is to satisfy stakeholders.
Branco and Rodrigues (2007) describe the stakeholder perspective of CSR as the set of views of
corporate responsibility held by all groups or constituents with a relationship to the firm. [79] In their
normative model the company accepts these views as long as they do not hinder the organization.
The stakeholder perspective fails to acknowledge the complexity of network interactions that can
occur in cross-sector partnerships. It relegates communication to a maintenance function, similar to
the exchange perspective.[80]
Ethical consumerism[edit]
The rise in popularity of ethical consumerism over the last two decades can be linked to the rise of
CSR.[81] Consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental and social implications of their
day-to-day consumption decisions and in some cases make purchasing decisions related to their
environmental and ethical concerns.[82]
Shareholder advocacy[edit]
Non-profits such as Ceres (organization) and As You Sow, and investing firms such as Calvert
Investments promote corporate responsibility through shareholder mobilization and corporate
engagement.
Public policies[edit]
Some national governments promote socially and environmentally responsible corporate practices.
The heightened role of government in CSR has facilitated the development of numerous CSR
programs and policies.[85] Various European governments have pushed companies to develop
sustainable corporate practices.[86] CSR critics such as Robert Reich argued that governments
should set the agenda for social responsibility with laws and regulation that describe how to conduct
business responsibly.
Regulation[edit]
Fifteen European Union countries actively engaged in CSR regulation and public policy
development.[86] CSR efforts and policies are different among countries, responding to the complexity
and diversity of governmental, corporate and societal roles. Studies claimed that the role and
effectiveness of these actors were case-specific.[85]
The variety among companies complicates regulatory processes. [87] Self-regulation allows each
corporate actor to balance profits and social responsibility without cumbersome governmental
involvement. Studies suggest that mandated CSR distorts the allocation of resources and increases
the likelihood of irresponsible decisions.[88]
Bulkeley cited the Australian government's actions to avoid compliance with the Kyoto Protocol in
1997, over concerns of economic loss and national interest. The Australian government claimed that
the pact would damage Australia more than any other OECD nation.[89] In November 2007, the new
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ratified the protocol.
Canada adopted CSR in 2007. Prime Minister Harper encouraged Canadian mining companies to
meet Canadas newly developed CSR standards.[90]
The Heilbronn Declaration is a voluntary agreement of enterprises and institutions in Germany
especially of the Heilbronn-Franconia region signed the 15th of September 2012. The approach of
the Heilbronn Declaration targets the decisive factors of success or failure, the achievements of the
implementation and best practices regarding CSR. A form of responsible entrepreneurship shall be
initiated to meet the requirements of stakeholders trust in economy. It is an approach to make
voluntary commitments more binding.[91]
Laws[edit]
In the 1800s,the US government could take away a firm's license if it acted irresponsibly.
Corporations were viewed as "creatures of the state" under the law. In 1819, the United States
Supreme Court in Dartmouth College vs. Woodward established a corporation as a legal person in
specific contexts. This ruling allowed corporations to be protected under the Constitution and
prevented states from regulating firms.[92] Recently countries included CSR policies in government
agendas.[86]
On 16 December 2008, the Danish parliament adopted a bill making it mandatory for the 1100
largest Danish companies, investors and state-owned companies to include CSR information in their
financial reports. The reporting requirements became effective on 1 January 2009. [93] The required
information included:
CSR/SRI policies
CSR/SRI is voluntary in Denmark, but if a company has no policy on this it must state its positioning
on CSR in financial reports.[94]
In 1995, item S50K of the Income Tax Act of Mauritius mandated that companies registered in
Mauritius paid 2% of their annual book profit to contribute to the social and environmental
development of the country. [95] In 2014, India also enacted a mandatory minimum CSR spending law.
Under Companies Act, 2013, any company having a net worth of 500 crore or more or a turnover of
1,000 crore or a net profit of 5 crore must spend 2% of their net profits on CSR activities. [96] The rules
came into effect from 1 April 2014.[97]
Geography[edit]
Corporations that employ CSR behaviors do not always behave consistently in all parts of the world.
[98]
Conversely, a single behavior may not be considered ethical in all jurisdictions. E.g., some
jurisdictions forbid women from driving,[99] while others require women to be treated equally in
employment decisions.
UK retail sector[edit]
A 2006 study[100] found that the UK retail sector showed the greatest rate of CSR involvement. Many
of the big retail companies in the UK joined the Ethical Trading Initiative,[101]an association established
to improving working conditions and worker health.
Tesco (2013)[102] reported that their essentials are Trading responsibility, Reducing our Impact on
the Environment, Being a Great Employer and Supporting Local Communities. J
Sainsbury[103] employs the headings Best for food and health, Sourcing with integrity, Respect for
our environment, Making a difference to our community, and A great place to work, etc. The four
main issues to which UK retail these companies committed are environment, social welfare, ethical
trading and becoming an attractive workplace.[104][105]
Top ten UK retail brands in 2013 based on Retail Week reports: [106]
Retailer
Annual Sales bn
Tesco
42.8
Sainsbury's
22.29
Asda
21.66
Morrisons
17.66
8.87
Co-operative Group
8.18
7.76
Boots
6.71
5.49
King Fisher
4.34
Anselmsson and Johansson (2007)[107] assessed three areas of CSR performance: human
responsibility, product responsibility and environmental responsibility. Martinuzzi et al. described the
terms, writing that human responsibility is the company deals with suppliers who adhere to
principles of natural and good breeding and farming of animals, and also maintains fair and positive
working conditions and work-place environments for their own employees. Product responsibility
means that all products come with a full and complete list of content, that country of origin is stated,
that the company will uphold its declarations of intent and assume liability for its products.
Environmental responsibility means that a company is perceived to produce environmental-friendly,
ecological, and non-harmful products.[108] Jones et al. (2005) found that environmental issues are the
most commonly reported CSR programs among top retailers. [109]