Actividad 4: De la aceleración constante

The above discussion about the evolution of business suggested that responsible management refers to more than achieving good financial results – it expects of businesses to deliberately acknowledge their interdependency with society (McLaughlin & McMillon, 2015; Hardjono & Van Marrewijk, 2001).

Researchers and managers agree that firms’ involvement with society has become a permanent feature and also one of the most critical issues affecting all areas of the contemporary business landscape (Serafeim; 2014; Keeler, 1999). The broad term of CSR has become inseparable from descriptions of firms’ involvement with modern society. Researchers and practitioners seem to agree about the importance of CSR, as it represents the firm’s necessary interaction with society and also correlates positively with corporate financial performance (Serafeim; 2014; Nickels et al., 2010).

For the purpose of this study, two aspects related to CSR are of particular importance, namely firstly the meaning of CSR, and secondly criticism toward CSR. The meaning of CSR is relevant to this study as it has been extensively researched over the years and thus provides key insights for the design and implementation of prosocial campaigns. Similarly, criticism of CSR will be considered for the purpose of avoiding possible pitfalls during the design and implementation of prosocial campaigns.

2.3.1 The meaning of corporate social responsibility (CSR)

As previously mentioned, the term CSR has become widely prevalent when describing firms’ involvement with society. Several other terminologies and labels have also been used or related to business’ societal involvement, for instance corporate philanthropy (Bartkus & Morris, 2015; Mowat, 2002), corporate citizenship (Scholte, 2015; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Maignan & Ferrell, 2001; Rondinelli & Berry, 2000), corporate governance (Denis, 2016; Rossouw, 2002), sponsorships, donations, co-alignments (e.g. CARE) (Krishna, Lazarus & Dhaka, 2013; Bednall, Walker, Curl & LeRoy, 2000), business ethics, corporate performance, sustainability (Yang & Guo, 2014), and others. However, the term CSR has remained the

34

most acceptable terminology, although its definition is continuously evolving (Yang & Guo, 2014).

The term CSR became widely accepted after Bowen (1953) published his seminal book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman in 1953. However, debates related to the meaning of CSR have been ample since the second half of the 20th _{century. Carroll (1979), in} a seminal article about the topic, defined CSR as the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society have of firms at any given point in time. Carroll (1991) further inferred that firms who strive toward social responsibility generate a profit, obey the law, are ethical, and behave as good corporate citizens. Since these initial definitions the CSR field has experienced significant growth and nowadays a large number of varying, sometimes confusing, terminologies, theories and approaches can be distinguished (Yilmaz, 2016; Cai, Jo & Pan, 2012; Vaaland & Heide, 2007; Garriga & Melé, 2004).

Dahlsrud (2008) conducted a content analysis of CSR definitions and found that the existing definitions are to a large extent congruent. He suggested that confusion about CSR is less related to the definition of the construct than it is to the manner in which CSR is socially constructed within a specific environment or context (Dahlsrud, 2008). Dahlsrud (2008) identified five dimensions of CSR that appeared across definitions: (1) environmental dimension, (2) social dimension, (3) economic dimension, (4) stakeholder dimension, and (5) voluntariness dimension (actions beyond those described by law). In addition to the dimensions mentioned by Dahlsrud (2008), most descriptions of CSR refer or subscribe to one or more of the following characteristics, namely:

1. The evolutionary nature of CSR and thus its ability to be uniquely applied in various industries and contexts (Bhaduri & Selarka, 2016; Boesso et al., 2015; O’Brien, 2001) 2. Acknowledgement of CSR as both a mindset and an application

3. The acknowledgement and acceptance of a broadened corporate responsibility beyond what is legally and commercially required (Seele & Lock, 2015) (related to the above- mentioned voluntariness dimension)

4. The importance of strategic investment initiatives (implying the expectation of returns) rather than philanthropic initiatives (Blowfield & Dolan, 2014; O’Brien, 2001)

5. The importance of process and conduct (thus, how goals are achieved) and not only the goals to be achieved (thus, what is to be achieved)

6. A continuous and deliberate focus on ethical behaviour and conduct

7. Consideration for direct and indirect organisational impacts of core and non-core organisational actions (Frankental, 2001)

35

8. Contributing to sustained business value and success by satisfying both the firm’s economic (e.g. profit maximisation) and non-economic (e.g. corporate social performance) objectives (related to the above-mentioned stakeholder dimension) (Kooskora; 2016; Pirsch et al., 2007; Harvey & Schaefer, 2001; Argandoña, 1998; Freeman, 1984)

Although researchers seldom agree on a specific CSR definition, the above analysis demonstrates a tendency toward a core set of prominent underlying principles that are relevant to the involvement of business with society. These principles are equally relevant when designing and implementing other prosocial campaigns and will thus be considered during the CARE research conducted in the rest of this study.

2.3.2 Criticism toward corporate social responsibility (CSR)

CSR has been used as an umbrella concept to refer to a large number of societal involvements (Athanasopoulou, 2014; Valor, 2005). Consequently, CSR has been characterised as having a confusing nature and lacking a clear, sufficiently broad definition. However, as mentioned previously, this criticism has been countered by research that showed the congruity of multiple CSR definitions (Dahlsrud, 2008). Other criticisms of CSR have been identified.

Firstly, CSR allows businesses to project a positive brand image even when their involvement with society is very limited (Aras & Crowther, 2010; Mullerat, 2009). Some firms, for instance, limit their CSR to socially responsible investment, but publicise these actions broadly and therefore receive positive reputational returns without active engagement in society (Lii & Lee, 2012; Corporate Watch, 2006).

Secondly, the level of publicity devoted to CSR creates a false impression that the majority of firms are seriously engaged in CSR-related activities, whereas the reality is that many smaller firms do not engage in CSR at all, many large firms often neglect to view CSR as a strategic business imperative, and CSR often depends on voluntary codes (Aras & Crowther, 2010; Mullerat, 2009; Freitag, 2008; Corporate Watch, 2006).

Thirdly, the CSR activities of many firms contradict their actual business practices or only extend to where their authority is direct. Leading firms in CSR have often been revealed as highly unethical companies who use CSR to conceal their questionable business practices (Corporate Watch, 2006). Also, many firms manage important CSR issues (e.g. equality)

36

within their own organisations, but continue to outsource to firms who completely disregard the same issues (Fernando, 2011; Mullerat, 2009).

Fourthly, the influence of large businesses often increases in societies where they are actively engaged in CSR. Although this increase in influence is not in itself necessarily a negative outcome of CSR, the misuse of CSR-derived influence for unethical and illegal purposes has been criticised (Tolhurst, Pohl, Matten & Visser, 2010; Mullerat, 2009).

A fifth criticism is that the CSR of firms often merely make empty promises to society as a means of increasing publicity, but never deliver on such promises (Heath, 2010; Mullerat, 2009; Banarjee, 2007; Lepoutre & Heene, 2006).

Davis (2005) has criticised the inadequacy of seeing Milton Friedman’s afore-mentioned views and CSR as opposing concepts on the societal involvement continuum. He states that both perspectives in different ways obscure the significance of social issues to business success (Davis, 2005) – Friedman by erroneously suggesting that social issues are tangential rather than fundamental to business and the CSR school by often being too limited (relating to the narrow CSR mindsets often adopted in earlier years), defensive (e.g. using CSR merely as a manner of avoiding criticism from NPOs and reputational disapproval) and disconnected from corporate strategy. Davis (2005) called for a new approach to business and societal interaction that resembles Rousseau’s social contract (Rousseau & Bosanquet, 1895). Social contract theory represents the idea that people’s moral and/or political obligations depend on the contract or agreement between them to form a society (Friend, 2006). Accordingly, a social contract approach would involve business and society operating in mutual agreement. According to Davis (2005) such an approach would further: (1) actively develop broader, meaningful success metrics, (2) be rooted in strategic development rather than public relations or corporate affairs, (3) include planning at the highest strategic level, (4) focus on educating boards of directors about important matters beyond financial performance, and (5) include stakeholder dialogue with NPOs as societal experts.

In a social contract approach to the interaction between business and society, the role of NPOs is thus elevated from societal agents to experts and from a mere public relations exercise to a strategic imperative. The nature and importance of NPOs will be discussed more in-depth due to its key role in society and in this study.

37