Lably
Skip to content

Corporate social responsibility

Form of corporate self-regulation aimed at contributing to social or charitable goals

  • 49 min read
  • 10 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Carbon footprint, Ethics and Nonprofit organization

While CSR often takes the form of a philanthropic, activist, or charitable nature by supporting volunteering through pro bono programs, community development, and by administering monetary grants to non-profit organizations for the public benefit, corporations have been seen shifting to a holistic and strategic approach. Strategic CSR is a long-term approach to creating a net positive social impact based on brand alignment, stakeholder integration, and ethical behaviour. Moreover, some scholars and firms are using the term "creating shared value", an extension of CSR which allows for social obligations to be met while the company reaps a profit.

For publicly listed companies, CSR often takes the form of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices and reports, but many companies have pledged to go beyond that. In some countries, companies are mandated or incentivized by governments to measure and report their impact on society, the community, and/or the environment. In addition, national and international standards, laws, and business models have been developed to facilitate and incentivize this phenomenon. Various organizations have used their authority to push it beyond individual or industry-wide initiatives. Further, CSR has been considered a form of corporate self-regulation, shifting from voluntary decisions at the level of individual organizations to mandatory schemes at regional, national, and international levels.

When focusing on corporate environmental responsibility, most firms use the term "sustainability" to explore the effort the company makes to reduce environmental harm such as by reducing waste and emissions, or by making a contribution through climate action and climate activism. Other companies focus more on their social impact, activism, or corporate citizenship. It is, therefore, important to know that CSR reports can take any of these names.

Businesses engage in CSR for strategic, ethical, or instrumental reasons. From a strategic perspective, CSR can contribute to firm performance, particularly when CSR is embedded strategically in the company, aligned with its brand, and occurs when the company utilizes its market position to create impact. Doing so, could lead to higher levels of financial and employee performance. These benefits accrue by increasing positive public relations and high ethical standards to reduce business and legal risk by taking responsibility for corporate actions. CSR strategies encourage the company to make a positive impact on the environment and stakeholders including consumers, employees, investors, communities, and others. From an ethical perspective, some businesses will adopt CSR policies and practices because of the ethical beliefs of senior management: for example, the CEO of outdoor-apparel company Patagonia, Inc. argues that harming the environment is ethically objectionable.

Proponents argue that corporations increase long-term profits by operating with a CSR perspective, while critics argue that CSR distracts from businesses' economic role. A 2000 study compared existing econometric studies of the relationship between social and financial performance, concluding that the contradictory results of previous studies reporting positive, negative, and neutral financial impact were due to flawed empirical analysis and claimed when the study is properly specified, CSR has a neutral impact on financial outcomes. Critics have questioned the "lofty" and sometimes "unrealistic expectations" of CSR, or observed that CSR is merely window-dressing, or an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations. In line with this critical perspective, political and sociological institutionalists became interested in CSR in the context of theories of globalization, neoliberalism, and late capitalism.

Definition

Since the 1960s, corporate social responsibility has attracted attention from a range of businesses, academics and stakeholders and been referred to by a number of other terms, including "corporate sustainability", "sustainable business", "corporate conscience", "corporate citizenship", "purpose", "social impact", "conscious capitalism", and "responsible business".

A wide variety of definitions have been developed, but with little consensus. Part of the definition problem has arisen because of the different interests represented. A business person may define CSR as a business strategy, an NGO activist may see it as 'greenwash' while a government official may see it as voluntary regulation. "In addition, disagreement about the definition will arise from the disciplinary approach." For example, while an economist might consider the director's discretion necessary for CSR to be implemented a risk of agency costs, a law academic may consider that discretion to be an appropriate expression of what the law demands from directors. In the 1930s, two law professors, A. A. Berle and Merrick Dodd, famously debated how directors should be made to uphold the public interest: Berle believed there had to be legally enforceable rules in favor of labor, customers and the public equal to or ahead of shareholders, while Dodd argued that powers of directors were simply held on trust.

Corporate social responsibility was defined by Sheehy as "international private business self-regulation". Sheehy examined a range of different disciplinary approaches to defining CSR. The definitions reviewed included the economic definition of "sacrificing profits", a management definition of "beyond compliance", institutionalist views of CSR as a "socio-political movement," and the law's focus on directors' duties. Further, Sheehy considered Archie B. Carroll's description of CSR as a pyramid of responsibilities, namely, economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. While Carroll was not defining CSR, but simply arguing for the classification of activities, Sheehy developed a definition differently following the philosophy of science—the branch of philosophy used for explaining phenomena.

Carroll extended corporate social responsibility from the traditional economic and legal responsibility to ethical and philanthropic responsibility in response to the rising concerns on ethical issues in businesses. A review of 14,523 articles found that stakeholder perspective is the most prevalent dimension of corporate social responsibility. This view is reflected in the Business Dictionary that defines CSR as "a company's sense of responsibility towards the community and environment (both ecological and social) in which it operates. Companies express this citizenship (1) through their waste and pollution reduction processes, (2) by contributing educational and social programs, and (3) by earning adequate returns on the employed resources."

Sign in to keep reading

9 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Environment