Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Business Ethics
Published in: Journal of Business Ethics 4/2014

01-06-2014

Corporate Social Responsibilities: Alternative Perspectives About the Need to Legislate

Authors: Craig Deegan, Marita Shelly

Published in: Journal of Business Ethics | Issue 4/2014

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This research involves a review of the submissions to a 2005/06 Australian Government Inquiry into Corporate Social Responsibility. The Inquiry was established to investigate whether corporate social responsibilities and accountabilities should be regulated, or left to be determined by market forces. Our results show that the business community overwhelming favour an anti-regulation approach whereby corporations should be left with the flexibility to determine their social responsibilities and associated accountabilities and ‘enlightened self-interest’ should be retained as the guiding mechanism for social responsibility initiatives. In stark contrast, the submissions from social and environmental organisations and individuals provided counter-arguments in favour of a pro-regulation view. Ultimately Government embraced the ‘free market perspective’ promoted by the business community and decided against the introduction of national legislation pertaining to corporate social responsibilities.
next article You Reap What You Sow: How MBA Programs Undermine Ethics

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
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Whilst there does appear to be compelling evidence that the environment is in crisis with major concerns about the impending impacts of climate change, it is acknowledged that there are alternative perspectives. There are a number of well-respected scientists who question the evidence and suggest that climate change is either not created by humans or is not actually occurring. Some of the alternative opinions are that climate change has happened before and it is part of the ‘normal cycle’ of the planet, and/or the models predicting climate change are overly simplistic thereby providing questionable predictions. See Lonborg (2001) and Itoh and Watanabe (2007) for an overview of contrary perspectives.
 
2
There are various definitions of sustainable development, but the one most commonly cited is ‘development that meets the needs of the present world without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987).
 
3
As will be explained later in this article, ‘stakeholders’ can be defined as any identifiable group or individual who can affect the achievement of an organisation’s objectives, or is affected by the achievement of an organisation’s objectives (Freeman and Reed 1983).
 
4
James Hardie Industries Ltd was involved in the manufacture, distribution and mining of asbestos and related products. Thousands of legal claims have been made against the company for health impacts (notably related to asbestosis and mesothelioma) and it has been widely questioned whether the company properly fulfilled its social responsibilities to people impacted by its operations and products.
 
5
The document accompanying the Terms of Reference did not specifically identify what was meant by the term ‘stakeholder’.
 
6
This view is also consistent with CPA Australia (2011, p. 5.15) which, in defining shareholder primacy, states: “An organisation that focuses primarily on the interests of shareholders is considered to be embracing a shareholder primacy perspective. To many people, the adoption of a shareholder primacy perspective and the notion of corporate social responsibilities are mutually exclusive. That is, an organisation that fixates on the interests of shareholders is not really embracing the spirit of CSR”.
 
7
Hence, the label ‘stakeholder theory’ can be a confusing term. As Hasnas (1998, p. 28) states, “stakeholder theory is somewhat of a troublesome label because it is used to refer to both an empirical theory of management and a normative theory of business ethics, often without clearly distinguishing between the two”.
 
8
Friedman (Friedman 1970) is also quoted as stating that the “Corporate executive has a responsibility to make as much money as possible (maximise profits), while conforming to the basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom”. Whilst reference is made to ‘ethical custom’, Friedman’s view of ethical custom was relatively limited and was construed as requiring an organisation to engage in open and free competition (no coercion) without deception or fraud.
 
9
We will return to this point later in the article when we consider the role of personal social responsibility (PSR) and corporate stakeholder responsibility.
 
10
According to its website, the Business Council of Australia is an association of chief executives of leading Australian corporations with a combined national work force of almost 1 million people. It was established in 1983 to provide a forum for Australian business leadership to contribute directly to public policy debates in order to build a better and more prosperous Australian society.
 
11
Similar drivers have also been identified in documents released by other Australian business organisations. For example similar benefits were identified in a report released in 2003 by the Group of 100 (a body made up of the Chief Executive Officers of Australia’s largest corporations). The report was entitled Sustainability: A Guide to Triple Bottom Line Reporting.
 
12
Enlightened self-interest is deemed to be in operation (CPA 2011, p 5.18) “when an organisation responds to community concerns (as if to appear to be ‘caring’) in those situations where doing so also fulfils the goal of maximising the value of the organisation, and therefore, the wealth of the owners”.
 
14
It needs to be emphasised that submitting parties frequently only addressed a sub-set of the Terms of Reference, hence the tables in the article will show that a number of submissions did not address the issue in question.
 
15
Again, Table 1 provided earlier gives a full list of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
 
16
Adam Smith’s most cited work is An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (WN), as published in 1776. It was republished in 1937 as Smith (1937).
 
17
Collison also argues that the works of other well-respected economists have been misrepresented by vested interests. For example, the studies of Berle and Means (1937) have “become identified with conflicts of interest between owners and controllers of wealth when they explicitly argued that both should be subservient to wider interests…They commended public policy rather than self-interest as the proper mechanism for allocating corporate income streams. As with Adam Smith, their names have arguably become misleadingly linked with a particular agenda”.
 
18
Fineman (1996) undertook an investigation of the attitudes and views of senior supermarket managers in the UK.
 
19
Galbraith arguably also held ‘iconic status’ like Friedman and Smith, but probably because his arguments are supportive of legislation he does not get cited by business.
 
20
For example, although most consumers in Nielsen's 2011 Global Online Environment & Sustainability Survey of 25,000 consumers in 51 countries report that they want brands to be eco-friendly, less than 20 % are willing to pay more for sustainable goods (see http://​www.​nielsen.​com/​us/​en/​reports/​2011/​sustainable-efforts-environmental-concerns.​html).
 
Literature
Adams, C. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731–757.CrossRef
Andersson, T. (1991). Government failure—The cause of global environmental mismanagement. Ecological Economics, 4(3), 215–236.CrossRef
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. (2006). ACCA Australia and New Zealand award for sustainability reporting 2005: Report of the Judges. Sydney: ACCA.
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. (2008). ACCA Australia and New Zealand award for sustainability reporting 2007: Report of the judges. Sydney: ACCA.
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. (2009). ACCA Australia and New Zealand award for sustainability reporting 2008: Report of the judges. Sydney: ACCA.
Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. London: Constable and Robinson.
Berle, A. A., & Means, G. G. (1937). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.
Cheng, S. (2004). R & D expenditures and CEO compensation. The Accounting Review, 79, 305–328.CrossRef
Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–118.
Collison, D. J. (2003). Corporate propaganda: Its implications for accounting and accountability. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(5), 853–886.CrossRef
Commission of European Communities. (2001). Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibilities. Brussels: Commission of European Communities.
Commission of European Communities. (2002). Corporate social responsibility: A business contribution to sustainable development. Brussels: Commission of European Communities.
Cooper, K., & Keim, G. (1983). The economic rationale for the nature and extent of corporate financial disclosure regulation: A critical assessment. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2(3), 189–205.CrossRef
Cooper, S., & Owen, D. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 649–667.CrossRef
CPA Australia. (2011). Module 5: Corporate social responsibility, CPA program—Ethics and governance. Melbourne: CPA Australia.
Deegan, C. (1999). Mandatory public environmental reporting in Australia: Here today, gone tomorrow? Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 16(6), 473–481.
Deegan, C. (2009). Financial accounting theory (3rd ed.). Sydney: McGraw Hill.
Deegan, C. (2010). Australian financial accounting (6th ed.). Sydney: McGraw Hill.
Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1996). Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the environmental protection authority. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(2), 52–69.CrossRef
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312–343.CrossRef
Demski, J., & Feltham, G. (1976). Cost determination: A conceptual approach. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.
Department of Trade and Industry. (2004). News Release ref. P/2004/177, 5 May 2004.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation-concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–92.
Fama, E. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88, 288–307.CrossRef
Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1985). Standardisation, compatibility, and innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 16(1), 70–83.CrossRef
Fineman, S. (1996). Emotional subtexts in corporate greening. Organization Studies, 17(3), 479–500.CrossRef
Freeman, R., & Reed, D. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. Californian Management Review, 25(2), 88–106.CrossRef
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times.
Galbraith, J. K. (1979). Economics and the public purpose. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Gray, R. (2005a). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation? Paper presented at European Accounting Association annual congress—Symposium on New Models of Business Reporting, Gothenburg, 18–20 May.
Gray, R. (2005b). Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour? Information for Better Markets Conference, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, London, 19–20 December.
Group of 100. (2003). Sustainability: A guide to triple bottom line reporting, G100, Melbourne.
Guthrie, J., & Abeysekera, I. (2006). Content analysis of social, environmental reporting: What is new? Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, 10(2), 114–126.CrossRef
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282–293.CrossRef
Hamil, S. (1999). Corporate community involvement: A case for regulatory reform. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1), 14–25.CrossRef
Hasnas, J. (1998). The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1), 19–42.CrossRef
Islam, M., & Deegan, C. (2008). Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to report social responsibility information: Evidence from Bangladesh. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(6), 850–874.CrossRef
Itoh, K., & Watanabe, T. (2007). Lies and traps in the global warming affair. Tokyo: Nihon-Hyoron-Sha Publishing.
Kothari, S. P. (2001). Capital markets research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1), 105–231.CrossRef
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Lee, C. M. C. (2001). Market efficiency and accounting research: a discussion of “capital market research in accounting” by S.P. Kothari. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1), 233–253.CrossRef
Lonborg, B. (2001). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30 year update. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well being. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really count. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
Mitnick, B. M. (1980). The political economy of regulation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Moody-Stuart, M. (2005). Commentary on ‘does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour’? Information for Better Markets Conference, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, London, 19–20 December.
O’Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16(3), 344–371.CrossRef
O’Neill, S., McDonald, G., & Deegan, C. (2008). Reporting occupational health and safety kpis in accordance with the GRI: Might the facts suggest a fiction? Paper presented at the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand Annual Conference, Sydney.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
Parkinson, J. (1994). Corporate power and responsibility: Issues in the theory of company law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (PJCCFS). (2006). Corporate responsibility: Managing risk and creating value, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, June.
Roberts, R. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.CrossRef
Rockness, J. W. (1985). An assessment of the relationship between US corporate environmental performance and disclosure. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 12(3), 339–354.CrossRef
Smith, A. (1937). The wealth of nations, originally published in 1776. New York: Modern Library Edition.
Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 2–21.
Stoney, C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: Confusion or utopia: Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603–626.CrossRef
Ullman, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory—A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.
Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(1), 53–63.CrossRef
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future (the Brundtland report). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WWF. (2005). Living planet report. Gland: WWF International.
Metadata
Title
Corporate Social Responsibilities: Alternative Perspectives About the Need to Legislate
Authors
Craig Deegan
Marita Shelly
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Business Ethics / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1730-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Journal of Business Ethics 4/2014 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Fund Loyalty Among Socially Responsible Investors: The Importance of the Economic and Ethical Domains

Report

The Ethics of Meaningful Work: Types and Magnitude of Job-Related Harm and the Ethical Decision-Making Process

OriginalPaper

Do Suppliers Applaud Corporate Social Performance?

OriginalPaper

You Reap What You Sow: How MBA Programs Undermine Ethics

OriginalPaper

Convergence of Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance in Weak Economies: The case of Bangladesh

Erratum

Erratum to: The Ethics of Meaningful Work: Types and Magnitude of Job-Related Harm and the Ethical Decision-Making Process

Premium Partner

    Image Credits