df

The C refers to policies, practices and impacts of corporations, historically governments used to grant special licenses to corporations to pursue large public projects, successfully society needed additional assurance about their sociability.

The S captures the location, since businesses play a role in society, this suggests that behavioral risks can be socially punished through boycotts or social media critiques, while good behavior that exceed societal expectations is rewarded.

The R stands for companies to be liable for something, companies take responsibility and answer for their actions and social or environmental impact.

There have been antecedents to CSR embodied in ancient populations, however in European tradition have often been defined in terms of philanthropy and industrial paternalism.

FROM THE MARGIN TO THE MAINSTREAM

For many companies, the adoption and development of CSR is more a question of learning and adaptation on the one hand and business opportunity on the other.

So here the main indicators of the mainstreaming of CSR among business:

Leadership perspective:

business leaders tended to see business and society integral to one another, David Packard fro HP also suggested his employees to: “make a contribution to society”

Walmart CEO Lee scott, in 2006 announced his intention to make Walmart run on 100% renewable energy

Societal perspective:

CSR expansion from being almost entirely a business concern, to an issue with which society is more aware and engaged.

CSR related to labour practice issues, business ethics, responsibility to society and environmental impact

General public is made very sensitive to particular issues, with growth of media coverage of business responsibility. Greenpeace campaigning against Nestle impact on orangutans habitat in KitKat advertising

Public opinion is increasingly attuned to issues of business responsibility and valuable companies want to feel secure to operate

Corporate centred to corporate oriented

A part from being part of the leadership agenda and a matter of societal attention, CSR has also moved from being corporate-centred to corporate-oriented.

CSR was originally about companies deciding themselves what responsibilities they had and how to pursue them, now civil society and government are involved in defining businesses responsibilities

6. CSR AT THE COMPANY LEVEL

At the Company level, there are many frameworks used by companies to manage their CSR and develop related strategies. The more influential framework are:

CSR pyramid coming from Archie Carroll, distinguish 4 types of responsibilities:

Economic – Legal – Ethical – Discretionary –

Critiques considered this model over descriptive, but is quite simple, considering the economic base of the pyramid, remids that CSR extends to core business and make think on how profits are made.

STAKEHOLDER APPROACH from Edward Freeman

Stakeholders are those upon the firm depends for its success, companies employing this model prioritize stakeholders:

Primary stakeholders can be investors, employees, suppliers, customers, governments,

Secondary stakeholders can include media and civil society.

Stakeholder management aims to combine good management and ethics

This model is used by firms as a way of thinking about their responsibility

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE OF THE P (people, profit, planet) by John Elkington

Companies should account their social and environmental impacts.

There are obvious problem of integration but this model has been welcomed because of the simplicity of this message by companies who are willing to extend their CSR agenda.

Procter and Gamble evaluate suppliers sustainability focusing in energy and water use, helping the company achieving its long term vision of zero waste.

SHARED VALUE by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer

Shared value approach to business which goes in contrast to CSR however some companies have adopted it. Shared value as a source of innovation and advantage for companies more than a way of managing stakeholders.

7. DOING CSR – SPHERES OF INFLUENCE

The UK business association Business in the community (BITC) distinguishes CSR practices according to their respective spheres: Community, Marketplace, Workplace and Environment

Spheres are used to distinguish and organise CSR practices.

COMMUNITY MNC reputation may also depend upon their community impact, developed as strategic and social oriented. Community seen as synonymous with society, willingness of employees to work for a firm and customers to buy form them. education, unemployment, environment, health, homelessness, supporting employees.

WORKPLACE  This relates to working conditions, pay, sexism but also working age, remuneration, labour standards, H&S pay and treatment, training and leave.

Many companies do not realise the importance of their reputation with their own employees.

MARKETPLACE Business should be responsible in the marketplace as well as suppliers responsible for their business operations and consumers responsible on how they use the products.

Globalisation allowed cheap and poorly regulated labour, with companies now addressing issues of labour standards, H&S and remuneration, in the light of controversy in the last 2 decades.

ENVIRONMENT Environment becoming a combination of intrinsic responsibility, cost saving opportunities and innovation.

8. GOOD BAD AND UGLY. Criticisms to CSR.

Devinney  presents three perspectives in his examination of the issue of CSR

Corporations have conflicting virtues and vices by their own nature that they will never be truly socially responsible

First, the traditional idea: corporations receive a moral sanction from the society and hence are required to operate withing the economical, legal, political and social norms of society. However, this is confusing because corporations do not operate in a singula clear society with unambiguous norms.

Secondly, devinney considers the good of CSR versus the bad of CSR. CSR is good because corporations are the most efficient way of determining social needs and deliverring social solutions: Corporations with more acceptable practices would have more satisfied customers and employeed. Corporations are mole likely tailor products and services.

UGLY

There is no indication that doing well by doing good has clear relation to generating firm value.

The relationship between CSR and performance is such that performance drives CSR and not the other way around.

In essence a firm can definitely “do well” but not necessarily can “do good”.

We want the corporation to engage in good social activity, but to be nice and not to use it for competitive advantage. Firms like individuals, will naturally be conflicted