Abstract
As many reasons as there are for the increased inclusion of social and environmental concerns in corporate agendas, what CSR means as a concept, and, as a second step, what should be its scope, are necessary definitions when grossly having decided that there are legitimate claims to be brought towards corporations by society at large.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 100 ff.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 52 ff.
Votaw in: Carroll (1999), p 280.
Fisher (2004), p 392.
Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 102.
Frederick (1994), p 154.
Frederick (1994), p 151.
Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 102 ff.
Snider (2003), p 175.
Broadhurst (2000), p 87.
Tencati et al. (2004), p 177.
Snider et al. (2003), p 176.
Crowther (2004), p 236 ff.
David Bowen in: Tencati et al. (2004), p 175.
Gowri (2004), p 33.
Gowri (2004), p 35.
Sarre et al (2001), p 303 ff.
Broadhurst (2000), p 86.
Frederick (1994), p 150, 157.
Crowther (2004), p 232 ff.
De George in: Fisher (2004), p 396.
Snider et al. (2003), p 176 ff.
Logsdon et al (1997), p
Bowen; Carroll (1999), p 269.
“The public wants goods, not goodness”. Walton (1999), p 126.
Logsdon et al (1997), p 1221.
Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 103.
Crowther (2004), p 37.
Polonsky et al. p 69.
The two components of CSR are derived from: Graafland et al. (2004), p 137 ff.
Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 101.
González (2002), p 101 ff.
Frederick (1994), p 152.
Roberts and Dowling (2002), p 1078 ff.
Frederick (1994), p 156 ff.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 52 ff.
Husted and Allen (2000), p 24.
Frederick (1994), p 154.
Morsing (2005), p 86.
However, stakeholder theory is not, as the name suggests, one theory, but Freeman himself has referred to it as stakeholder theories to clarify there is a diversity of opinions on the scope of stakeholders a firm has, and also on what basis decisions on how to deal with their claims (namely in which order they shall be satisfied) are to be made: Utilitarian stakeholder theory will strive to maximise total happiness among stakeholders (and potentially neglect some groups that do not contribute much to “total happiness”, whilst they might be especially “worthy” of protection at the same time), Rawlsian stakeholder theory will be striving for justice, and therefore “prefer” the most deprived, discriminated, or exploited stakeholders that don’t have a voice. Logsdon and Yuthas (1997), p 1216. Again, these might not be key stakeholders to the firm. So, as much as there is consensus on the fact priorities have to be set, as much controversy this process of selection will create — among scholars, but also practitioners, and civil society.
Frederick (1994), p 157.
Crowther (2004), p 168.
Graafland et al. (2004), p 140 ff.
Frederick (1994), p 153.
Crowther (2004), p 147 ff.
Sarre et al. (2001), p 308.
Broadhurst (2000), p 94 ff.
Enumeration inspired by: Aguilera (2005), p 46 ff.
Boyd (1996), p 169 ff.
As Corporate Governance guidelines are concerned with board structure and competencies, to a large extent, employees and their interest representatives do take advantages out of CG legislation in countries with a dual board structure (notably German-speaking countries), where seats in the “supervisory board” (Aufsichtsrat) are reserved for employee representatives (Aguilera, 2005, p 44): Legislation concerning information and transparency requirements for executives towards the Board of Directors naturally involves them also to a greater degree.
Snider (2003), p 183 ff.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 57.
Snider (2003), p 181.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 56 ff.
Husted and Allen (2000), p 24 ff. Nevertheless, the definition of the Corporate Citizenship concept is not that simplistic. There are indeed four point of views: One sees CC in a restrictive way, reducing it to philanthropy, another one uses the term synonymously with CSR, and yet another one has an even more extensive perspective on CC.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 57.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 63.
Walton (1999), p 155 ff.
Husted and Allen (2000), p 27.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 61.
Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 101 ff.
Gladwin and Kennelly, 1995. In: Garriga and Melé (2004), p 61 ff.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 61 ff.
Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 101.
Crowther (2004), p 110.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 61 ff.
The most important and well-known indices include the Calvert Social Index, KLD Broad Market Social Index, FTSE4Good, Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI World), Ethibel Sustainability Index (ESI Global), ECP Ethical Global Return. Crowther (2004), p 179 ff.
Crowther, 2004, p 170 ff, 179 ff.
Even more than CSR, SRI shows that a value-driven concept can often be reflected from two antagonistic stances: In the case of socially responsible Catholic funds, they guarantee no money is invested in companies that have to do with the porn industry, abortion, or even contraception (Crowther, 2004, p 170 ff.) — however, many may value investing in contraception highly socially responsible for the sake of preventing deaths of HIV-AIDS, or avoiding teenage pregnancies. So, the definition for SRI must remain quite value-neutral, in my point of view, denominating every kind of investment that is based on ethical/ religious/social considerations more than on financial ones, no matter what ideology may be involved.
Tencati et al. (2004), p 174.
Crowther (2004), p 164 ff.
Unethical, fraudulent or otherwise wrong behaviour by firms listed has already brought huge losses to stock exchanges: For instance, in 1963, the New York Stock Exchange voluntarily paid huge compensation sums for damages suffered by investors in the DuPont, Homsey&Co fraud scandal to re-establish investor confidence in the financial market place. Walton (1999), p 158.
Husted and Allen (2000), p 25.
Husted and Allen (2000), p 22 ff.
Vacchani and Smith (2005), p 78.
4 billion people worldwide, 65% of the global population, earn less than $ 2000/year — this huge consumer segment is not only neglected to their own detriment, but also to the respective detriment of corporations, as their aggregate purchasing power would be considerable(products or services might be sold to communities rather than individuals). Prahalad and Hammond in: Harvard Business Review (2003), p 4 ff.
Smith (2005), p 62.
Crowther (2004), p 231.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 55.
Polonsky et al. p 69.
Smith (2005), p 64.
This is the point I make on the relationship between ethics and CSR, however the contributions found in the literature are quite different: Many assume only individuals dispose of “ethics”, therefore organisations do not, and this vacuum therefore needs to be filled by CSR. Lozano (1996), p 227 ff. Business, according to them, is by definition “amoral”, thus neither “good”, nor “bad”, and CSR should be nothing but “ethics in an organisational context”, as only people have “ethics”, while for organisations that do not hold “personal beliefs” another concept would have to be elaborated (this, of course, neglects the fact that not the corporation itself is acting, but individuals with values and personal beliefs are acting and running the business on its behalf). Yet another distinction made by scholars on the relation between ethics and CSR states that ethics has to do with people’s conduct within the organisation, while social responsibility concentrates on the consequences of business activity. CSR would therefore examine the impact business activity has on “society at large”, while “corporate ethics” concern the actions of people employed by the company, thus will address individual decision-makers to consider also organizational well-being, and social desirability in their selection of corporate goals — and basically create an “ethical workplace environment”. Fisher (2004), p 392 ff. However, these considerations do not serve the purpose of this thesis, as they are of little relevance to practical feasibility, implementation, and advantages of CSR strategies.
Broadhurst (2005), p 86. Such theoretical-philosophical discourses include question like “can it ever be ethical to use ethics as a strategy” (Husted and Allen, 2000), or what philosophical basis CSR could be based on, from Kantian ethics over Utilitarian approaches to Rawlsian justice thoughts.
Husted and Allen (2000), p 26 ff.
Milton Friedman in: Allhoff and Vaidya (2005).
Walton (1999), p 101 ff.
Walton (1999), p 189 ff.
With „embodied in laws“, one should add contractual obligations, even if Friedman did not mention them explicitly — in the end, they are binding according to civil, commercial and/or corporate law. Cragg (2000), p 206.
Fisher (2004), p 394 ff.
Cragg (2000), p 206.
Logsdon et al. (1997), p 1216.
Walton (1999), p 100 ff.
Walton (1999), p 42.
Walton (1999), p 101 ff.
Cragg (2000), p 206.
Husted and Allen (2000), p 26 ff.
Walton (1999), p 90 ff.
The author names an example: If the corporations of the pharmaceutical industry in a given society decided they would rather want to produce orange juice out of economic considerations, society would not have any claim to drugs being further on produced by the corporation, even if they were much more needed than orange juice within this society. The only mechanism private business is responsible to therefore is the market, deciding over its respective success or failure. Walton (1999), p 16 ff.
Snider et al. (2003), p 185.
Frederick (1994), p 151 ff.
„Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundation of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for the stockholders as possible.“ Carroll (1999), p 277.
Walton (1999), p 99.
Walton (1999), p 125.
Walton (1999), p 99.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 66.
Walton (1999), p 125 ff.
Milton Friedman in: Allhoff and Vaidya (2005).
This is commonly attributed to the “era of boundless greed” in the 80ies (Cragg, 2000, p 210), which led to a recession and, at the same time, to a reassessment of profitability in the sense of sustainable profitability (certainly influenced by parallel well-consolidated findings regarding environmental and social sustainability).
Cragg (2000), p 207.
Logsdon and Yuthas (1997), p 1221 ff.
Crowther (2004), p 205 ff.
Snider (2003), p 175 ff.
Goll and Rasheed (2004), p 42 ff.
Goll and Rasheed (2004), 53 ff.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 55 ff.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 64.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 54 ff.
Crowther (2004), p 236 ff.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 59.
Snider et al. (2003), p 176.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 60.
Crowther (2004), p 232 ff.
Goll and Rasheed (2004), p 42.
Walton (1999), p 140 ff.
Husted and Allen (2000), p
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 59 ff.
Snider et al. (2003), p 183.
Walton (1999), p 140 ff. Such shareholder activism includes the wish for increased corporate engagement for the environment, health and safety, race and gender, working conditions, human rights, but also for higher education institutions. Crowther (2004), 172 ff.
Davis, 1967. Garriga and Melé (2004), p 66 ff.
Walton (1999), p 72 ff.
Crowther (2004), p 215.
Logsdon and Yuthas (1997), p 1216.
Utilitarian vs. Rawlsian approach. Husted and Allen (2000), p 24.
Graafland et al. (2004), p 138.
Tencati et al. (2004), p 177.
Husted and Allen (2000), p 28.
Pinkston and Carroll (1996), p 205.
Pinkston and Carroll (1996), p 199 ff.
Snider et al. (2003), p 177.
Fisher (2004), p 394.
Pinkston and Carroll (1996), p 200.
Snider et al. (2003), p 177.
Pinkston and Carroll (1996), p 205.
Logsdon and Yuthas (1997), 1221 ff.
Gowri (2004), p 33.
Abiding by laws is a social obligation in and for itself. Ostas (2004), p 561.
This is, of course, conditional on time and place, namely on industrialised societies since the later 20th century. Given the difficulty of conferring values that “fluctuate with time and place” from one context to another, see: Snider et al. (2003), p 175.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 65.
Snider et al. (2003), p 177.
Carroll (1999), p 275 ff.
Pinkston and Carroll (1996), p 202.
Crowther (2004), p 122.
Crowther (2004), p 168 ff; p 209 ff.
Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 101.
Graafland et al. (2004), p 138.
Elkington in: Sarre et al. (2001), p 310.
Porter and Kramer in: Harvard Business Review (2003), p 35.
Tencati et al. (2004), p 175.
Porter and Kramer in: Harvard Business Review (2003), p 31 ff.
Craig Smith in: Kotler and Lee (2005), p 7 ff.
Porter and Kramer in: Harvard Business Review (2003), p 35 ff.
Porter and Kramer in: Harvard Business Review (2003), p 29 ff. The most famous example for a corporation that successfully implemented such a CSR program and considerably enhanced its competitive standing is Cisco Systems and its “Cisco Networking Academy”: As the company perceived a future shortage of web administrators that posed a threat to future growth of the company and its product market, Cisco developed a free education program aimed at the most economically depressed US regions and neighbourhoods — and later extended the program to developing countries, forming a partnership with the UN — and thus gave deprived and poor populations education of a value that donations could have never achieved, while at the same time confronting and solving a business threat to the company.
Crowther (2002), p 212.
Kotler and Lee (2005), p 8.
Tencati et al. (2003), p 176.
Dalton and Cosier, 1982, in: Carroll (1999), p 285.
Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 102 ff.
Davidson and Griffin, Schermerhorn in: Fisher (2004), p 395. A similar terminology is used by Black and Porter: Defenders, accommodators, reactors and anticipators. Yet other scholars adapt the stages of individual moral development pointed out by Kohlberg to organisations and their specific motivations and needs — Kohlberg’s stages of moral development will be further elaborated in the section dealing with institutional factors fostering CSR. V.A. Institutional Factors.
Crowther (2004), p 232 ff.
Garriga and Melé (2004), p 57.
Cragg (2000), p 212.
Tencati et al. (2004), 175 ff.
Jenkins (2005), p 529.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Physica-Verlag Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2008). CSR Conceptualisation. In: Corporate Social Responsibility as an International Strategy. Contributions to Economics. Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2024-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2024-9_4
Publisher Name: Physica-Verlag HD
Print ISBN: 978-3-7908-2023-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-7908-2024-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)