Advertisement

Factors Impacting Upon CSR Engagement

Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)

Abstract

After having discussed diverse choices for concrete CSR measures to be taken by corporate executives as part of their business strategy, and the good business reason potentially underlying such choices, the most crucial strategic implications seem to not lie in the fundamental willingness of corporations and their respective key decision-makers to engage in CSR, as the huge majority of corporate managers sureyed suggest they do have CSR on their agenda.1 What seems to be key rather is the implementation stage, and thus the practical feasibility of such measures. A variety of factors will impact not only upon the mere decision-making itself on what the corporation is to engage in, but precisely those factors will further constitute a major influence on whether a corporation’s CSR strategy will eventually succeed or fail. Factors both internal and external to the organisation may work as barriers, obstacles or, on the contrary, as drivers for “good” CSR. They can mainly be detected on three different levels:

Keywords

Family Business Moral Development Ethical Climate Corporate Social Performance Ethic Education 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Referring to the 2002 Ernst&Young survey mentioned earlier in the chapter on CSR Conceptualisation: 73% of 114 Global 1000 companies surveyed have CSR on corporate agendas. Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 103.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neubaum (2004), p 244.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hemingway (2005), p 235.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orlitzky (2001), p 169 ff.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elsayed (2006), p 305.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crowther (2004), p 117.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orlitzky (2001), p 169 ff.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lu et al. (1999), p 91 ff.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elsayed (2006), p 299.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De la Cruz Déniz Déniz and Katiuska Cabrera Suárez (2005), p 30 ff.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elsayed (2006), p 299 ff.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neubaum (2004), p 344.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 229.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heming (2005), p 234 ff.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elsayed (2006), p 304 ff.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seifert et al. (2003), p 196 ff.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Survey conducted by Ernst&Young, Sept. 2002, 114 companies from the Global 1000 surveyed. Van Marrewijk (2003a), p 103.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elsayed (2006), p 298 ff.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 339.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orlitzky (2001), p 169.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 335 ff.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 229.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 345.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 224.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Elsayed (2006), p 302.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Elsayed (2006), p 305.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 339.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sridhar and Camburn (1993), p 730 ff.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 336 ff.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 336 ff.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 339 ff.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hemingway (2005), p 235.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hemingway (2005), p 240 ff.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 339.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 234 ff.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Referring to a study conducted in Germany. Grojean et al. (2004), p 227 ff.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibrahim et al. (2003), p 394.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Desai and Rittenburg (1997), p 796.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carroll draws the distinction between immoral, amoral, and moral managers. “Moral muteness” as a form of organisational behaviour shown by executives has been infamously proved by the Stanford Prison experiment. Hemingway (2005), p 234 ff.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 226 ff.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hemingway (2005), p 236.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 227 ff.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    This might be the sad reason why so long no considerable corporate support for HIV/AIDS victims was felt — another reason might, of course, be the fact corporations tend to avoid controversial issues when donating. Husted and Allen (2000), p 27.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    What is interesting to note is that managers with low social conscience do not even donate to the poor if their industry is “predisposed” to do so, like the food industry, where over-supply will have to be destroyed, anyway. Ibrahim et al. (2003), p 395 ff.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Seifert et al. (2003), p 198.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Campbell et al. (1999), p 377 ff46Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ibrahim et al. (2003), p 382.Google Scholar
  48. 49.
    What needs to be said is that an organisation does not have “one” climate, but it can have multiple forms of climates, for instance regarding safety, customer service etc. Grojean et al. (2004), p 225 ff.Google Scholar
  49. 50.
    Noll (2005).Google Scholar
  50. 51.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 225 ff.Google Scholar
  51. 52.
    Hemingway (2005), p 234.Google Scholar
  52. 53.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 224.Google Scholar
  53. 54.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 236.Google Scholar
  54. 55.
    Bowen (2004), p 312.Google Scholar
  55. 56.
    Desai and Rittenburg (1997), p 796.Google Scholar
  56. 57.
    Bowen (2004), p 320 ff.Google Scholar
  57. 58.
    Card (2005), p 397 ff.Google Scholar
  58. 59.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 340 ff.Google Scholar
  59. 60.
    Hemingway (2005), p 238 ff.Google Scholar
  60. 61.
    Frederick (1994), p 159 ff.Google Scholar
  61. 62.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 232.Google Scholar
  62. 63.
    Coffey and Wang (1998), p 1595 ff.Google Scholar
  63. 64.
    Ibrahim et al. (2003), p 394 ff.Google Scholar
  64. 65.
    Ibrahim et al. (2003), p 395 ff.Google Scholar
  65. 66.
    Roxas and Stoneback (2004), p 150.Google Scholar
  66. 67.
    Weeks et al. (1999), p 310 ff.Google Scholar
  67. 68.
    Roxas and Stoneback (2004), p 151.Google Scholar
  68. 69.
    Ameen, Guffey, McMillan (1996), and Betz, O’Connell, Shephard (1989), respectively. Roxas and Stoneback (2004), p 152.Google Scholar
  69. 70.
    What has to be mentioned is that in some fields also males were found more sensitive, for instance with regard to copying computer software or collusion in bidding situations. Weeks et al. (1999), p 307.Google Scholar
  70. 71.
    Roxas and Stoneback (2004), p 157 ff.Google Scholar
  71. 72.
    Weeks et al. (1999), p 302Google Scholar
  72. 73.
    Serwinek (1992), p 562.Google Scholar
  73. 74.
    Luthar et al. (1997), p 214 ff.Google Scholar
  74. 75.
    Weeks et al. (1999), p 307.Google Scholar
  75. 76.
    Serwinek (1992), p 563.Google Scholar
  76. 77.
    Roxas and Stoneback (2004), p 149 ff.Google Scholar
  77. 78.
    Lu et al. (1999), p 91 ff.Google Scholar
  78. 79.
    Roxas and Stoneback (2004), p 150 ff. It is important to note that “masculinity” and “femininity” shall not be understood in strict categories of patriarchal or matriarchal structures within a culture: Saudi Arabia is classified as a “feminine” culture due to the high value assigned to care and responsibility for others, respect for sensitivities, and the requirement of modesty. Please note that also Chinese men were found to be more caring than Chinese women in: Roxas and Stoneback (2004), p 157 ff, so Chinese culture might also show traits of socalled “femininity”.Google Scholar
  79. 80.
    Lu et al. (1999, p 92 ff.Google Scholar
  80. 81.
    Lu et al. (1999, p 102.Google Scholar
  81. 82.
    Edmondson and Carroll (1999), p 171 ff.Google Scholar
  82. 84.
    Lam and Hung (2005), p 200 ff.Google Scholar
  83. 85.
    Lam and Hung (2005), p 204 ff.Google Scholar
  84. 86.
    Lam and Hung (2005), p 199 ff.Google Scholar
  85. 87.
    Rice (1999), p 356.Google Scholar
  86. 88.
    Lam and Hung (2005), p 208.Google Scholar
  87. 89.
    Luthar et al. (1997), p 208.Google Scholar
  88. 90.
    Lam and Hung (2005), p 208.Google Scholar
  89. 91.
    Luthar et al. (1997), p 208 ff.Google Scholar
  90. 92.
    Luthar et al. (1997), p 214.Google Scholar
  91. 93.
    Role plays have proven highly effective in this regard: For instance role plays presenting the Challenger decision dilemma to students, without giving its name, of course, can raise great awareness about the fact wrong business decisions can impact lives and existences of “real” people. Kuhn (1998).Google Scholar
  92. 94.
    Crowther (2004), p 245 ff.Google Scholar
  93. 95.
    Cullen et al. (2003), p 138.Google Scholar
  94. 96.
    Luthar et al. (1997), p 215.Google Scholar
  95. 97.
    The stages of career development are defined as exploration in the early phase, followed by establishment, maintenance, and disengagement towards the end of the career. Weeks et al (1999), p 305.Google Scholar
  96. 98.
    The examined country is China, so the results might not be generalizable without reservations: Chinese culture puts a specific emphasis on the responsibilities of the wealthy towards those that are not so „well off“. Lam and Hung (2005), p 201 ff.Google Scholar
  97. 99.
    Luthar et al. (1997), p 207 ff.Google Scholar
  98. 100.
    Weeks et al. (1999), p 303.Google Scholar
  99. 101.
    Serwinek (1992), p 560 ff.Google Scholar
  100. 102.
    Serwinek (1992), p 565.Google Scholar
  101. 103.
    Elsayed (2006), p 305.Google Scholar
  102. 104.
    Husted and Allen (2000), p 26.Google Scholar
  103. 105.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 345Google Scholar
  104. 106.
    Grojean et al. (2004), p 229.Google Scholar
  105. 107.
    Elsayed (2006) 302Google Scholar
  106. 108.
    Lin and Lin (2006), p 94.Google Scholar
  107. 109.
    Bowen (2004), p 316.Google Scholar
  108. 110.
    Neubaum et al. (2004), p 339.Google Scholar
  109. 111.
    Lin and Lin (2006), p 94.Google Scholar
  110. 112.
    Roxas and Stoneback (2004), p 149.Google Scholar
  111. 113.
    Goll and Rasheed (2004), p 44 ffGoogle Scholar
  112. 114.
    Ibrahim et al. (2003), p 398.Google Scholar
  113. 115.
    Lin and Lin (2006), p 95.Google Scholar
  114. 116.
    Zahra (1994), p 53 ffGoogle Scholar
  115. 117.
    Hemingway (2005), p 241.Google Scholar
  116. 119.
    Schwartz (2004), p 323 ff.Google Scholar
  117. 120.
    Ruhnka and Boerstler (1998), p 309 ff.Google Scholar
  118. 121.
    Ruhnka and Boerstler (1998), p 314.Google Scholar
  119. 122.
    Referring to the EPA guideline system in the US. In case an incident occurs, the corporation is of course held liable for it, and that to an even sharper extent. Ruhnka and Boerstler (1998), p 317.Google Scholar
  120. 123.
    Ruhnka and Boerstler (1998), p 315 ff.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Personalised recommendations