The instrumental or business case (Porter and Kramer, 2006) was the most frequently referenced aspect of CSR (chapter 3). The majority of respondents thought that major firms equated doing good to doing well and some gave examples of beneficial publicity and enhanced employee satisfaction created by CSR [PU1;PU2;NP6;PR9;PR12;PR13; PR14;PR18;PR20;PR22;PR23]. Thus ‘enlightened self-interest’ [PR20] was perceived as a key motivator for CSR. However, the exact nature of the benefits that accrue from CSR was difficult for
146
managers to assess apart from reputation which was seen as having great importance in the eyes of all respondents.
5.4.1 Marketing and PR
The central perception of CSR was that it was primarily a ‘marketing’ device even if it was not used as one in their organization [NP6; PR14; PR20; PU2; PU1; PR15; PR22; PR23]. In terms of justifying CSR one of the critics of the concept Geoffrey Lantos (2001, 2002) considered marketing a legitimate reason for CSR. To a limited extent, this view concurs with those of Porter and Kramer (2002; 2006), who regard CSR useful as a strategic tool linked to core business aims. Even so, several respondents could see the value to society from the use of CSR in causal marketing. Examples were given, including ‘sponsorship of the 2012 para-Olympics’ [PR20] ‘and Barcelona FC with UNICEF on their shirts’ which ‘says a lot’ about ‘promoting benefits of sport’ and good causes [PU1]. The most
frequently cited examples of ‘good CSR’ [NP6] were ‘Body Shop’ and ‘Ben and Jerry’s’ [NP7; PR14; PR15; PR19]. One respondent with experience of MNCs suggested ‘Unilever…one of the best examples…and their approach to a more sustainable future very much comes from the top’ [PR10]. Overall, there was a view that CSR was a ‘what organizations do for the greater good’ [PR9], which was subject to corruption in its application. Within the process, however, individuals and communities would usually attain some level of benefit
[PU1;PU2;PR19;PR20;PR22] and there were commendable examples where companies ‘generally behave decently’ driven by worthy motivations [PR14]. The opinion that companies were engaged in CSR for other than altruistic reasons was held by all respondents. Paradoxically, this was the opinion of the three managers in a financial company whose personal experience of CSR in their workplace had been entirely positive and honourable [PR12;PR13;PR14]. For example one, who through her work dealing with people in debt, had a heightened sense of the difficulties faced by some marginalised groups in society. She
believed that ‘it’s even more important that we behave with integrity and can stand up to scrutiny’ [PR13]. In her estimation her company’s owners – a married
couple – displayed an engagement with CSR that was an exemplar of the
147
manager’s definition of CSR was that it was largely a PR exercise to promote the brand, which she described as,
‘…how a company is seen by other firms and the public at large. It’s mostly about image, about how you put your brand across’ [PR13].
This was interesting given that the individual’s personal values were within strong moral and ethical parameters, which were compatible with those of her employers. It appeared, therefore, that the general view of CSR as a marketing device had transcended her personal experiences. She saw CSR as ‘a PR thing mostly - some firms exploit it, like Starbucks to cover up not paying tax’ [PR13]. Here Gadamer’s notion - set out in the methodology chapter 4 - of influence according to the culture of organizations as well as backgrounds experiences, throws up an interesting question. The perplexing problem is to understand at what point an individual’s direct encounter with a philosophy is negated by second-hand information perpetuated through other sources, such as the mass media. To varying degrees, in all the interviews there was some evidence of this
phenomenon. Thus it brings into question whether managers would ever see CSR as a genuine initiative to improve society through sustainable business practices. It also reinforces the need for CSR being depersonalised as a
corporate or executive preoccupation by making social responsibility a personal obligation of each manager. This extension to MSR would incorporate Follett’s philosophy that the larger interest of the advancement of society is made personal to each manager (Follett, 1941:367).
5.4.2 Reputation
The larger interest of business both internally and externally, was perceived by eight respondents as being linked intrinsically to ‘reputation’. The entrepreneur’s view was
‘Reputation in business is the most important thing; it’s not the finance, it’s not the product, the location - it’s reputation’ [PR16].
This view was endorsed emphatically by the executive from an accountancy and firm who had seen the consequences of a lost reputation. In PR15’s company ‘having a positive reputation for being a decent good quality organization’ was part of being regarded as trustworthy. Furthermore, he commented on the importance
148
of reputation insofar as the recruitment and retention of staff ‘where they have a choice’ was affected by a company’s stance on CSR [PR15]. This was also the view of PR10, the food-store owner, who had seen ‘the people who are just entering the workforce now…more aware and much more concerned’ about working for socially responsible firms [PR10]. Particularly in those industries where there were skill shortages, new recruits were perceived to be linking CSR to commercial robustness and viability [PR10; PR15]. In addition to pay, potential employees ‘are looking at things like corporate responsibility and the interaction of the business with the outside world’ [PR15]. Thus the focus on reputation
represents a significant element to the way in which MSR should be approached. What comprises reputation, however, can be transient as evidenced by the
criticisms associated with tax avoidance. The concept that ‘reputational capital’ (Burton and Goldsby, 2009:149) can accumulate to be spent later appeared to run through some of the comments from managers. News stories relating to
‘scandals’ at ‘the Co-op’ stores and bank [NP6] (Neville, 2014) were cited as examples of an ethical reputation being undermined but where the individuals remained loyal for the time being [NP6;NP7;PR11;PR23]. However, as pointed out by PR15, taking chances with reputation may depend on ‘what you’re selling and how you’re selling it’ [PR15]. As an example he recalled ‘Gerald Ratner’ who attempted to amuse by making disparaging comment about his products ‘and suddenly his business is destroyed’ [PR15] (Whysall,1998). When probed on reputation in terms of CSR, the same respondent described an additional benefit by its engagement with local good causes in that it expanded their base of
contacts.
‘We’d consider it to be good for the organization because it’s networking - being involved. But it’s also networking that’s benefitting the wider
community’ [PR15]
Whether or not engagement with the community would have been saved Ratner’s from insolvency is questionable [PR15]. However, the power and
instantaneousness of mass communication, emphasises the importance of protecting and reinforcing reputation as ‘big name companies’ become more ‘paranoid about their reputation’ [PR9]. The power of ‘social media campaigns when…companies are being irresponsible’ [PR23] reinforces the attraction of CSR
149
as being ‘more about defence and pre-empting attack than being a caring
company’ [PR19]. Thus managers acknowledged that the business case for CSR was an acceptable proposition as long as society benefitted by at least as much as the companies who were using CSR for ‘marketing and PR’ [PR9;PR12;PR13]. However, the majority view, especially that of managers who worked in
organizations that were exemplars of CSR was that it should be an inherent part of business operations, regardless of the rewards for organizations
[PR12;PR13;PR14;PR16; PR17;PR18]. 5.4.3 Summary of section three
All respondents identified an element of marketing, PR and defending reputations as a driver for CSR. However, a significant proportion of respondents worked in organizations where making a positive contribution to society and social
responsibility was the motivation rather than enhancing reputation.
The appreciation of the benefits of the business case for CSR, illustrates that managers understand the part that they and their organizations may play in the relationship between business and society. Although not in keeping with Follett’s idea of the contribution that business management should make to society, the data indicates that there exists a platform of understanding among managers about social responsibility, its advantages and disadvantages.