Diseño e implementación de las entrevistas

The literature contains a wide range of definitions of CSR, with no apparent consensus on a universal definition of what CSR exactly is, nor what it precisely entails. As the meaning and definition of CSR has evolved over time, it is not easy to agree on one exact definition. The aim of this subsection is to identify and examine a range of CSR definitions presented in the literature. These definitions range from business development focused ones on the one hand, to those incorporating a wider range of stakeholders and aims on the other. As will be illustrated, however, they all relate to how business takes account of its economic, social and/or environmental impacts in the way it operates, maximising the benefits and minimising the downsides. A general consideration of the terms contributing to CSR perhaps provides a good starting point for this section. The term "social" may refer to social issues such as health, education, security and other similar issues but could also be interpreted as related to society more widely, including the environment. The latter interpretation can be thought of as the ambit of action of the corporation. The term "responsibility" on

the other hand, could be understood as accountability for the corporation's actions; or a sense of duty toward society; and for others, good judgment (Vives, 2008).

According to The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, corporate social responsibility can be defined as the undertaking of a permanent obligation to participate in the development of the economy. Similarly, Greenfield (2004) described CSR in a context of expectation that corporations as legal entities have two main duties; to make money for owners and to obey applicable laws. Nadhar et al. (2014) suggested that CSR is a type of corporate self-regulation incorporated into a business model. These definitions do not provide much help in terms of explaining or defining CSR and provide a clearly narrow view of CSR containing only economic and legal aspects. It is a general expectation on each business to contribute to economic development within the law.

Slightly more detailed definitions of CSR were provided by Novak (1996) and Luetkenhorst (2004) who argued that CSR enables businesses to move from compliance to engagement and the establishment of added value through their practices. Although this definition attempts to explain some role for business in CSR context, it remains vague and stops short of identifying the nature of this role and the partners involved. On the other hand, Clarkson (1995) and Waddock et al. (2002) described CSR as an undertaking reflected in partnerships with employees, employee families and the local community. In 1971, the non-profit and business-led American public policy organisation, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) defined CSR as a business function aimed at constructively serving societal needs (CED, 1971). In 2011, the European Commission defined CSR as the duty of companies and organisations to take responsibility for their impacts on society (Khan et al., 2013).

These definitions provide more detail about possible partners for businesses within a CSR context, and indicate an expectation for corporations to have a process for integrating CSR into their strategies and operations. However, it could be argued that these definitions remain largely vague and fail to identify areas of engagement with or pathways for supporting the needs of those partners.

A number of other definitions of CSR included more description of the nature of the practice. For example, Carroll (1979) placed CSR within a framework of corporate social performance (CSP); including four types of CSR: economic, legal, ethical and discretionary. Jamali and Mirshak (2007) defined CSR as a set of management practices that extend beyond the normal legal, ethical, commercial and public demands. They suggested that the private sector can create economic growth and so has a moral duty to undertake practices which increase both opportunity and economic growth in a fair and sustainable manner. Unlike the more general previous definitions, these definitions implied that there was a direct role for businesses to contribute to societal benefits by creating opportunities in a more defined manner. Visser (2008) included economic, legal, ethical, social, and voluntary aspects in his discussion of CSR. The voluntary nature of CSR was also suggested by the International Labour Organisation which defined it as an integration of internal business processes with social principles on a voluntary basis. Hancock (2005) summarised his understanding of CSR as a process which included environment, community development and other philanthropic undertakings under the assumption that corporations accepted and adopted principles of morality, accountability and integrity. It is important to emphasise that within most of the literature discussion of CSR, there is a wide recognition that businesses still require a balance of return on

natural, social and financial capital in order to effectively integrate CSR initiatives and enterprise operations to ensure a company does not operate at a loss while trying to implement CSR initiatives (Carroll & Shabana 2010).

A more inclusive and detailed definition of CSR emphasising the long-term and ethical nature of CSR, as well as stating the its beneficiaries was provided by Holme and Watts (2000) describing it as a ‘continuing commitment by a business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large’. However, Micheletti (2003) argued that this is impossible to achieve because while the aim is to maximise shareholder value, many other stakeholders are disregarded; stakeholders such as creditors, customers, debtors, environmental issues and future generations. The disregard for many other stakeholders means corporations are encouraged to consider and take up much wider social aims. CSR discourse progressed to discussion of international development (Natufe 2001; Walker, 1992) with organisations like The World Bank (2000) describing CSR as a new tool for community economic development, education, disaster relief, environmental protection, health promotion and many other areas that previously came under government remit; this broad coverage served to keep the definition of CSR imprecise.

It is important to note that the literature contains much debate about the role of CSR in addressing not only social and economic aspects but also environmental ones. For example, Jamali et al. (2009) defined CSR as the process of integrating social and environmental concerns in the business model of an organisation, while Reinhardt and Stavins, (2010) described concerns about environmental protection as an

important concept for organisations. As a result, companies in developed countries (such as the United States and the United Kingdom) are increasingly involved in environmental protection activities such as reducing the amount of emissions, encouraging tree planting, and engaging in activities that encourage preservation whether through funding or offering training sessions. Although this is an important aspect of CSR practice, the main focus of this research is on the role of CSR in economic sustainability and development. Emphasis on the role of CSR in economic development in this work is motivated by the economic and social challenges in Saudi Arabia and on the government’s current drive towards diversification of the economy and development and training of Saudi citizens (Vision 2030). Therefore, the link between CSR and environmental matters is considered outside the scope of this current work.

In this context, it is crucial to emphasise that corporate philanthropy or charity is often mistaken for corporate social responsibility. The two concepts are not same, or more precisely, corporate philanthropy could be considered as one dimension or phase of CSR development. In order to understand what is meant by the social responsibility of business, and why it is not equal to philanthropy, this discussion needs to be placed in the context of the definitions presented in this section and, more directly, the classification presented by Lantos (2002) based on Carroll’s four-part definition of CSR (Caroll, 1979). Lantos suggested three different types of CSR:

1. Ethical CSR: a morally mandatory fulfilment of a corporation’s economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities.

2. Altruistic CSR: Fulfilment of a corporation’s philanthropic or charitable responsibilities, going beyond preventing possible harms (ethical CSR) to helping

alleviate community and public welfare deficiencies. It is crucial to emphasise that this type of CSR is practiced regardless of whether or not it benefits the business itself.

3. Strategic CSR: Corporate activities that help the public while accomplishing strategic business goals. In other words, these are activities or initiatives that benefit both the corporate implementing them and the communities in which they operate. Whilst Lantos presented this classification as three different types of CSR, others thought of them as phases of development rather than just different types of CSR (Porter and Kramer, 2006). This is based on an argument that corporations initially responded to societal issues through philanthropy (altruistic CSR in Lantos’ classification) as a starting point, but learned that philanthropy was not enough (perhaps not sustainable from a business perspective). CSR, according to Porter, represented the next phase, which he argues is more than just philanthropy. It includes philanthropy, but also involves compliance with ethical and legal community standards, citizenship activities helping companies to be good corporate citizens and moving towards sustainability. In other words, Porter implies that corporations have learned from a process of moving from philanthropy to CSR. He stated that there is ultimately a next phase of this process, which involves creating shared value; arguing that while philanthropy and some forms of CSR involved taking resources from the business and using them to help worthy social causes, shared value is about the practice of capitalism “creating economic value by creating a societal value” (Porter and Kramer, 2011). This argument converges with Lantos’s strategic CSR classification. In summary, we can define or describe CSR on three levels: philanthropic or charitable (helping communities without necessarily expecting a

return), basic (good corporate citizenship that does not harm society) and strategic (helping communities while benefiting the business). The fact that CSR is thought of as the same as philanthropy is perhaps because philanthropy was the most common way utilised by corporations to help communities for a long time. This is clearly changing as the business world is changing and shifting its focus towards basic and strategic CSR.

This discussion illustrates that there is a lot more to CSR than just corporate philanthropy in that it is not just about making a contribution towards good causes. For the purpose of this thesis, the following understanding and definition of CSR will be used: CSR is a continuous responsibility of corporations to serve and develop the community, its business and other stakeholders through the integration of corporate and social values and cultures in their strategies with the aim of achieving future corporate and social sustainability. This definition emphasises the continuous nature of CSR as opposed to short term gestures as well as the element of development of communities, which will help improve conditions and create capacity. It also recognises the need to include benefits for the business itself as well as for relevant stakeholders. The major emphasis of the definition is on the aim of achieving economic sustainability through ensuring that CSR activities can add value to all those involved. By economic sustainability, I mean mutual long term benefits for the business, which can simultaneously create opportunities for members of the community involved. It is important to emphasise that the term community in this definition is meant in a broad sense and refers to people interacting with the business. The size of the community in this definition scales with the size of the corporation involved in the CSR. In other words, it refers to local community for a small business

and to multiple communities across a number of countries for multinational corporations. The next section will provide a discussion of the drivers in CSR as presented in the literature.