CATEGORÍA: ENSEÑANZA Instrumento: Cuestionario

Despite the widespread recognition of the importance of CSR and extensive literature on the subject, there is no one agreed definition as to what exactly the notion of CSR or socially responsible corporate behaviour refers, nor what it should comprise (Dahlsrud, 2006). Carroll (1994), a renowned scholar in the area of CSR, characterised the field as being eclectic, encompassing different perspectives, having loose boundaries and being wide in breadth. In light of the openness of the concept, Blowfield and Frynas suggest thinking about CSR “…as

an umbrella term for a variety of theories and practices, all of which recognize the following: (a) that companies have a responsibility for their impact on society and the natural environment, sometimes beyond legal compliance and the liability of individuals; (b) that companies have a responsibility for the behaviour of others with whom they do business (e.g. within supply chains); and (c) that business needs to manage its relationship with wider

society, whether for reasons of commercial viability or to add value to society” (2005, p. 503). While CSR may be conceptualised in differing ways, it is widely accepted that CSR should be voluntary and undertaken at the discretion of business (Dahlsrud, 2006; Sagebien & Whellams, 2010).

Reflecting on the potential interpretive and eclectic spectrum of CSR, Garriga and Melé (2004) contend that there are four dominant forms of CSR theory exercised within the private sector, including instrumental, political, integrative and ethical theories of CSR. These theoretical

vantage points are relevant to framing the arguments of this research and are therefore outlined below:

ƒ Instrumental CSR theories assume that the sole purpose of business is wealth

creation and therefore that this is the sole responsibility of the private sector (ibid.). In this sense, any forms of CSR adopted by a business are done so instrumentally, for the purpose of making a profit. Economist Milton Friedman is notorious for

advocating an instrumental approach to CSR. Friedman asserts “…there is one and

only one responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities

designed to increase its profits …” and therefore condones private sector investment

at the community level so long as it leads to enhanced corporate profit (Friedman, 1962, p.133, cited in Friedman, 2008, p. 89).

ƒ Political CSR theories emphasise the social power of the private sector within society

and the associated political responsibilities accepted by companies as a consequence of this power (Garriga & Melé, 2004). As advanced by Davis, “[t]o the

extent that businessmen or any other group have social power, the lessons of history suggest that their social responsibility should be equated with it” (1960, p. 71). As such, generally envisioned, political CSR theories anticipate a co-power and responsibility relationship, which connect that attainment of social power via private sector activity to corresponding private sector obligations to behave in a socially responsible manner (Garriga & Melé, 2004).

ƒ Integrative CSR theories recognise the reliance of the private sector on society for

corporate growth (ibid.). Such theories are focused on responding to and anticipating the social demands of society necessary to legitimise corporate activity and promote the acceptance of the corporation within society (ibid.). They are therefore specific to the context and setting of private sector activities, and the values of society within a particular time and space. While such theories may be diverse, in essence they act to connect issues of corporate social performance to issues of corporate legitimacy.

ƒ Ethical CSR theories are premised on ethical principles and are based on the

relational notion that there is an ethical obligation of business within society (ibid.). These theories tend to be based on normative values that “…express the right thing to do or the necessity to achieve a good society” (ibid, p. 60). For example, such CSR theories may be framed around the concept of sustainable development, the construct of human rights or the notion of the common good.

Internationally, the burgeoning popularity of varying forms of CSR has been put down to increasing levels of civic awareness of the potentially adverse social and environmental impacts caused by transnational businesses and the consequent need to control these adverse impacts (Utting, 2005). Fox, however, argues that transnational company motives for engaging with CSR are instead more profit-orientated, and include “…new business

opportunities through social and environmental innovation, cost savings, staff recruitment and retention, reputational risk management, campaign pressure from NGOs or trade unions,

media exposure, regulation and litigation” (2004, p. 36). Thus, within literature on CSR, two prominent ideological views subsequently emerge. One emphasises the potential for CSR to advance win-win company-stakeholder possibilities and to promote best practice and good governance within business, in effect conceptualising business as being a critical part of the poverty-to-development solution. The other more critical view tends to dismiss CSR as window dressing and as being an attempt to legitimise ongoing business-as-usual activities (Utting & Marques, 2010).

This latter perspective includes the view that corporate support for voluntary CSR is a defensive ploy to control the scope of legislated forms of corporate social responsibility (Utting, 2005), acting as a means to reinforce the exploitative basis of capitalism (Rajak, 2011; Ravi Raman, 2010; Sklair, 2010). By acting as a moral dimension to capitalism, critics argue that the good intent of CSR may mitigate the potentially negative perceptions about business but, in reality, do little for people negatively impacted by business activities (Crook, 2008; Frynas, 2005a; Hilson, 2012). As CSR is often voluntary versus mandatory in nature, and due to its potentially confined scope focused on the advancement of business objectives, CSR critics remain wary of the ability of CSR to promote sustainable development (Honke, 2013; Merino & Valor, 2011; Rajak, 2011; Sklair, 2010).

CSR within the Domain of Development

Although scepticism exists regarding the capacity of CSR to add value to society, internationally CSR programmes and initiatives are increasingly entering the development agenda (Sagebien & Whellams, 2010). This is now well entrenched within global level development discourse, which advocates that the private sector has a critical role to play in promoting human development. This is apparent within the 2011 Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, Korea (High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 2011), the 2012 Rio+ 20 Earth Summit (United Nations, 2012), the International Conference on Financing for Development (United Nations, 2015), and the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Sagebien and Whellams attribute the recent shift toward

more development-orientated notions of CSR as being as a result of: “(1) the sheer size of

corporate global activity, power, and influence that resulted from the liberalization of markets of the 1990s; (2) the magnitude of the global challenges posed by externalities such as climate change, growing poverty, and political instability; (3) the limited ability of states, especially in the developing world, to address the impacts of the former two dynamics; (4) the inclusion by national and international development agencies and development banks of the notion of private sector-led development in their agenda; (5) the activism of civil society in a wired world; and (6) the pressure to curtail corporate abuses abroad being felt by the

governments of the firm’s headquarters home states” (2010, pp. 486-487).

As the objectives of development and business may potentially conflict, an inherent tension must nevertheless be acknowledged to underlie the CSR-in-development agenda (Blowfield, 2005a; Frynas, 2005a; Sagebien and Whellams, 2010) . In acknowledgment of this tension, Kemp (2010a) posits that there remains uncertainty as to how exactly the simultaneous agenda of commercial development and human development can effectively be pursued in practice. Furthermore, according to Rajak (2011) the tension between business and development objectives itself reflects the novelty of the CSR-in-development agenda, as through the discourse of CSR corporations can assert their corporate agency to accrue moral authority as agents of development, whilst at the same time advancing corporate power and

the logic of the market. In the end, she contends, “… the moral economy of CSR represents,

not an opposition to the contemporary world of corporate capitalism, nor a limit to it, but the very mechanism through which corporate power is replenished, extended and fortified” (Rajak,

2011, p. 239). Within literature it is further posited that issues of human rights, social justice, gender, class and equality are typically absent from mainstream CSR development considerations (Hamann & Kapelus, 2004; Jenkins, 2005; Prieto-Carron, Lund-Thomsen, Chan, Muro, & Bhushan, 2006, Utting, 2007; Utting & Marques, 2010). As these matters exist as cross-cutting issues within development, their exclusion from mainstream CSR-in- development narratives suggests that the effectiveness of corporate community development intervention may be limited in its ability to enhance development within communities. As little is known about the development impacts of CSR (Frynas, 2008), this highlights the relevance of this research within the current context.

Recognising the need for further development premised research, Sagabien and Whellams (2010) argue that further evidence-based research is necessary in order to understand the effectiveness of corporate community development intervention as a development tool. Related to this, Banks et al. (2016) argue that there is a need to examine corporate community development initiatives from the perspective of people that they are intended to

benefit, as this may help realise the potential of those corporate activities. Acknowledging the importance of large-scale mining for the achievement of development within PNG, and recognising the need for additional evidence-based research investigating the effectiveness of corporate development intervention from a community perspective, this research is pertinent because although mining companies are increasingly adopting development-orientated CSR rhetoric, the degree to which it is implemented to improve human development remains questionable (Gamu et al., 2015; Slack, 2012).