Top

Published in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

12. Coherent CSR

Author : Ivan Hilliard

Published in: Coherency Management

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This final chapter begins by assessing the growth of CSR in the past twenty years and trying to understand why it has been so ineffective in terms of the objectives it set itself. One of the arguments presented is the need (currently lacking) for the field of CSR to acknowledge its limited strategic impact to date. A second argument presented deals with organizational bias, whereby decision-making becomes locked-into certain parameters and results are valued above processes. It finishes by outlining a series of pitfalls to avoid for any organization serious about adapting a coherent approach to social responsibility.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Systems Thinking for Coherency

India at 28.12% and China at 17.44% between them make up over 45% of the total participants.

14 major industrial sectors are represented, with Financial Services (23%), Technology, Media & Telecommunications (13%), Oil & Gas (10%), and Industrials, Manufacturing & Metals (10%), making up over half of the survey simple.

If not exactly CSR, something similar with a different name—corporate sustainability, for example.

Such a change in perspective is not impossible. The twentieth century witnessed several revolutions in multiple aspects of management thinking, including scientific management in the early decades (Taylor 1914), ideas on organizational behavior in the mid-decades (March and Simon 1958), and a focus on competitive advantage and differentiating capabilities in more recent years (Porter 1985).

This is described as ‘political corporate social responsibility’ by Dobers and Springett (2010).

Many corporate and academic events are held under the umbrella of CSR to highlight such initiatives and promote best practice exchanges. This is not to say that such exchanges are not to be encouraged. However, many of these initiatives take place almost in parallel to daily business practice. The only way CSR will really improve the world is if every one of these many initiatives is deeply embedded in the strategic thinking and operational activity of the organization that implements it.

Imagine if the environment where a company creates negative impacts were given the same treatment as the company gives itself, with a focus on ever continual improvement for ever cleaner rivers, every greater quality assurance for protecting biodiversity, and the same energy applied to nurturing the air as given to new product launches.

A water company can do a lot to ensure its supplies are of the highest quality and generate the minimum (or ideally no) negative impact on the environment from which they are drawn, but how the end-user consumes the water can only be influenced by the water company to a relatively small extent.

This is another example of violation bias (others are responsible for fixing the problem, and the individuals’ hands are tied) and demonstrates how interconnected society’s problems are. People elect politicians, who make weak legislation, which companies use to continue generating negative impacts, which allows people to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions by blaming the companies.

Interestingly, the returns on SRI are in many cases no higher than the returns from conventional investment. This is because, while the socially responsible firms they invest in do produce exceptionally high returns, these are balanced out by not investing in irresponsible, but high return sectors, such as tobacco and arms manufacturers (Statman and Glushkov 2009). While the authors of the cited study suggest that SRI funds should include irresponsible sectors in their portfolios (making a mockery of the whole idea of SRI), a more nuanced conclusion would be that being responsible, does pay, for any individual firm.

Many commentators shy away from defining complex adaptive systems, concerned that by doing so they may limit a concept that can manifests itself in an enormous variety of forms (Levin 1998). That said, most definitions focus on similar facets: Complex adaptive systems are open and evolutionary, with dynamically interrelated and interdependent components (or agents), which share some common purpose (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007).

The acceptance of a mutual interdependent relationship between the organizational stakeholders and the value they create (condition #2) will increase complexity, as it is based on a fundamental reordering of priorities and years of business practice. Conditions #3 and #4 are unlikely to have the same effect, as they involve changes in relationships (from a stakeholder who doesn’t share the organization’s responsibility stance to one which does), which while important is not so radical.

It is just in recent years, and in limited places, that nature is beginning to acquire rights. In 2008, Ecuador enshrined the inalienable rights of nature—or Pacha Mama as is stated in Article 71 of the Constitution—to exist, thrive, and evolve. Bolivia has also introduced a Law of Mother Earth. In early 2018, the Columbian Supreme Court declared the Colombian Amazon a ‘subject of rights.’

Consider the role of supply chain management in underlining strategies of augmented customer value. This may include sourcing (with the different ethical assessments, regulatory considerations, and legal concerns), inventory and storage, purchasing and billing, logistics, as well as the coordination required to integrate all these activities into a single product for the end-user (Ellinger et al. 2002). While some of these activities may require high levels of explicit knowledge (e.g., logistics, billing, inventory, and storage), others will be likely to require higher levels of tacit knowledge (e.g., ethical assessments and coordination).

For example, zero tolerance to discrimination hotlines to report abuses will not go far if a culture remains where only good news is rewarded, and those who raise awkward questions are deemed difficult and not really ‘team-players.’

Amazingly, of the 850 European companies participating in the Carbon Disclosure Project, more than 50% have no emissions reduction target at all in place (Carbon Disclosure Project 2018).

Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79.CrossRef

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper.

Carbon Disclosure Project. (2018). Higher ambitions, higher expectations. Retrieved from https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/004/069/original/CDP_Europe_report_2018.pdf?1550522791.

Cassidy, D. (2003). Maximizing shareholder value: The risks to employees, customers and the community. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 3(2), 32–37.CrossRef

Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3), 351–366.

Coffey, B. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1991). Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(6), 437–444.CrossRef

Dobers, P., & Springett, D. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: Discourse, narratives and communication. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(2), 63–69.CrossRef

Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 1(1), 69–97.CrossRef

Draper, S. (2006). Key models for delivering sector-level corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6(4), 409–419.CrossRef

Drucker, P. F. (1998). Management’s new paradigms. Forbes Magazine, 10(2), 98–99.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.CrossRef

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 5–22.CrossRef

European Commission. (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for corporate social responsibility. COM 2011/681. Brussels, European Commisson.

Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review, 2(4), 54–61.CrossRef

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.CrossRef

Gong, Y., & Ho, K. C. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility matter for corporate stability? Evidence from China. Quality & Quantity, 52, 2291–2319.

Halal, W. E. et al. (2001). The collaborative enterprise: A stakeholder model uniting profitability and responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship.

KPMG International. (2017). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2017. Retrieved from www.kpmg.com/crreporting.

Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1(5), 431–436.CrossRef

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

McCann, L., Solomon, A., & Solomon, J. F. (2003). Explaining the growth in UK socially responsible investment. Journal of General Management, 28(4), 15–36.CrossRef

Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR: Transactional, relational, and developmental approaches. California Management Review, 54(4), 93–117.CrossRef

Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32(1), 108–131.CrossRef

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRef

Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 797–837.CrossRef

Pitelis, C. N. (2013). Towards a more ‘ethically correct’governance for economic sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 655–665.CrossRef

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.

Porter, T. B. (2008). Managerial applications of corporate social responsibility and systems thinking for achieving sustainability outcomes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25(3), 397–411.CrossRef

Schueth, S. (2003). Socially responsible investing in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 189–194.CrossRef

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sibony, O., Lovallo, D., & Powell, T. C. (2017). Behavioral strategy and the strategic decision architecture of the firm. California Management Review, 59(3), 5–21.CrossRef

Statman, M., & Glushkov, D. (2009). The wages of social responsibility. Financial Analysts Journal, 65(4), 33–46.CrossRef

Stone, C. D. (1972). Should trees have standing—Toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California Law Review, 45, 450.

Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.

Young, W., & Tilley, F. (2006). Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The shift toward effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(6), 402–415.

Title: Coherent CSR
Author: Ivan Hilliard
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Coherency Management
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13522-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-13523-2

Copyright Year: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13523-2_12