The Social Responsibility of Public Administration

‘The Corporate Social Responsibility of Public Administration’ is an edited collection of writings in the larger domain of corporate social responsibility. This book originates in the series of annual conferences ‘International Conference on Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Sustainable Business’.​ This book appears to be timely because reform of public administration is a current topic of discussion in many countries around the world. We want to explore the possibilities of a corporate social responsibility of public administration (CSR of public administration), given that the mainstream view confines CSR to business.

This introduction proposes a set of statements that could frame the discussion about the subject of this book. All organizations ought to inherently account for their value added to society. All organizations ought to have a good explanation of what their value to society is. The introduction defines the bureaucratic horizon, that is, the global characteristics of public administration that are in the mind of the contributors when they write their chapters. Government includes the politicians and the public administration. Public administration is a subset of government, and it includes all career employees of central and local government. Most employees are life tenured in fixed job positions, with much less rotation and turnover than the private sector. Globally, there is an oversupply of labor for public administration jobs and it is estimated that there are half a billion public employees. From a theoretical point of view, the mainstream view confines CSR to business. On the other hand, we argue that public administrations could account for the use of money in a more substantive way than they do today, the key being the distinction between the normative and positive approach. Theoretically, in fact, public administration is, by definition (or tacitly), considered socially responsible. But is it really? When CSR is examined comparatively across all the sectors of the economy, we notice competition becomes a driver of responsibility. This book tries to look inside public administration and aims to support public administration organizations to take an inward look toward themselves. CSR of public administration is about the public administration’s core business of the public administration itself. The applicability of CSR in public administration must have limits; otherwise, this concept risks losing its meaning and ‘everything becomes CSR’. From a structural point of view, the CSR of public administration would imply competition within public administration, one specific kind of competition: competition without privatization. Social performance reporting should be seen as a real example of socially responsible actions in public administration. This chapter also tackles the political issue: Who will bring this about? It looks unlikely that public administration will reform itself. It is also unlikely that politicians will make lasting changes in public administration. Businesses—subject to competition—could lobby for a greater accountability within public administration, tilting the balance of power between those who are subject to competition and those who are not subject to competition. On the other hand, we observe that there are nuances in the CSR of public administration across the globe. The actual responsibility of civil society can be a driver of responsible public administration.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a ubiquitous concept. It has made inroads into morality and business opportunity. It has found the approval of global institutions. However, it still strives to make itself credible and authentic and—by the same token—to motivate the business community from a cogent theoretical point of view. There appears to be a gap in the theory that would answer a research question like: How can we reformulate CSR in order for it to be cogent from a mainstream economic theory point of view?

The scope of this chapter is to suggest a formulation of CSR based on mainstream self-interest and neoclassical microeconomics. The approach to theory development is deductive (from neoclassical economics principles) and inductive (based on literature review). Going back to the basics, this chapter provides a first tentative answer by identifying cogent theoretical reasons why CSR should be practiced by ‘business managers of corporations as a standard of their profession rather than a voluntary and optional initiative’. This chapter’s finding is ‘Reformulated CSR’, whose theoretical underpinning is identified in the two categories of failure: market failure and a sociology of organizations’ novel idea of ‘organizational failure’.

This chapter is limited to an initial attempt to address the issue that defines a new potential research area. Future studies could also look at Reformulated CSR vis-a-vis theories of human organizational interaction and look at the role of competition and environmental stewardship. If Reformulated CSR is accepted, then CSR becomes a businesses’ duty to account for their potential conditions of failure, thus overcoming the voluntary motivation that clutters other views. At the same time, Reformulated CSR should not be confined to the business sector as it encompasses all sectors of the economy, including—notably—the public administration. Policy implications include generalized social performance reporting on the part of public administration and—of course—the corporations.

This chapter represents a report of corporate social responsibility (CSR)-related government policies and regulations from Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, and Spain. It highlights the significant influence of both EU directives and national initiatives in fostering sustainable business practices, as well as the national governments compliance with the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights through National Plans on Business and Human Rights, which have been implemented by seven of the nine analyzed countries. This chapter’s objective is to present and discuss the importance of aligning national policies with EU and UN regulations to ensure coherence and effectiveness. Our findings reveal significant regional disparities in the implementation of CSR policies across nine European countries, shaped by economic maturity, cultural attitudes, and alignment with EU and UN directives. While Western nations often lead with robust frameworks and initiatives, emerging markets face challenges in harmonizing domestic priorities with international standards, highlighting the need for cohesive, adaptive approaches to CSR. Future researchers should broaden its scope and incorporate primary data to enhance the understanding of CSR policies, while public authorities should update and refine their CSR regulations to address evolving challenges.

The purpose of this chapter is to formulate and illustrate a possible point of view of the corporate social responsibility of public administration in the making and in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public administration is a key sector, employing half a billion people globally. Therefore, it appears meaningful to embark in such operation as to define the place of public administration vis-a-vis the SDGs. To do so, this chapter provides observations, data, and recommendations of possible ways to take into account public administration within the framework of the SDGs. In doing so, this chapter embodies also a critique of the SDGs from a public administration perspective. Questions asked include “What is the role of public administration in implementing the SDGs”, and “What could SDGs mandate to improve public administration”. This chapter draws examples and engages in specific goals and targets, which are the second-level specification of the SDGs.

The topic of ethical conduct in public administration communication is a current concern, in the context of rapidly evolving technological developments and the proliferation of digital media platforms. It can guarantee the honesty, openness, credibility, and responsibility of public institutions. Public communication has the power to shape public opinion, influence behavior, and impact society at large. Ethical communication practices consider the broader social consequences of messages and strive to promote the public good rather than personal gain or organizational interests. The study employs a comprehensive analysis of the literature review in this field. In this regard, this chapter aims to understand the ethical framework and to identify ethical issues in public communication. A key case study examined is the Roșia Montană Gold Corporation controversy, which serves as an illustrative example of ethical dilemmas in corporate communication, public relations strategies, and civil society responses. The findings underscore the significant impact of digital media and social networking platforms in disseminating information. Social media platforms like Facebook, X (former Twitter), and YouTube have become important channels for public administration communication, activism, and citizen engagement, but they also pose challenges related to misinformation, hate speech, and online manipulation. The implications of this study extend beyond the borders of Romania, offering insights regarding the promotion of social responsibility, mitigating harm, enhancing professionalism, and building sustainable relationships.

This chapter examines the application of Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) principles to public administration, focusing on the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA). It discusses the challenges and opportunities of integrating sustainability practices within public institutions, emphasizing transparency, stakeholder engagement, and alignment with EU policy goals. This chapter advocates for adapting CSRD principles to public administration to enhance accountability and promote sustainability. Using a case study of BAFA, it illustrates how public offices can lead systemic change, contributing to national and international sustainability objectives.

Monetary policy is one of the key public policies of modern economies. It has a direct impact on price stability, interest rate level, volatility, monetary, and credit expansion, as well as on the volatility of the exchange rate. The quality of money and credit is crucial for financing and investment decisions, for macroeconomic stability, balance of payments, or public deficits and debts. Today, this policy has specific goals and objectives and is managed by central banks with the purpose of serving the public interest. Without sound monetary policy and a trusted central bank, economic growth and development can be significantly altered. The importance of this state institution significantly increased in the last decades, being empowered with more and more functions and attributes: from simple minter of standardised coins and banknotes towards the regulator and supervisor of banking sector, lender of last resort for banks, buyer of financial assets and administrator of international reserves. This chapter will assess the importance of social responsibility in the case of central banks by analysing their independence, accountability, and transparency. We will discuss and define social responsibility by looking at the general and specific objectives set for central banks, their general and specific goals and their tools used to achieve them, their balance of power in connection with other public institutions (government, parliament, etc.), and the control that could be exerted by these institutions on the activity of the central bank. This chapter also provides solutions and improvements to improve the social responsibility of central banks that could enhance economic growth and development.

Universities have transitioned over the past decade, from merely knowledge dissemination hubs to pivotal agents of social transformation, addressing societal challenges through university social responsibility (USR). This chapter explores USR as an extension of corporate social responsibility (CSR) within higher education, emphasizing its crucial role in advancing sustainable development. Universities operationalize USR through initiatives such as community-engaged research, eco-friendly campus practices, and educational programs aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The success of these efforts rests on visionary leadership marked by inspirational presence, cognitive excellence, and ethical stewardship. The synergy between USR and leadership fosters sustainability in education, empowers future leaders, and cultivates collaborative networks to optimize resources and expertise. Together, they establish a robust framework for sustainable development, driving equitable progress through higher education.

This chapter defines from a large and narrow perspective what is CSR and operationalizes the concept in specific connection with the activities of public administration. The items are then used in a questionnaire, and are tested in order to find out the attitudes of the public servants toward the aforementioned concepts, adding the concept of trust in government. We also test to see if variables like seniority, time spent as public servant or gender may influence these attitudes.

Local public administrations from Romania have been going through profound transformations for several years, in an attempt to reduce bureaucracy and provide better services for citizens. The issue of social responsibility, more frequently encountered in the corporate environment, began to be discussed more and more often in the Romanian public administration. The population demands transparency in decision-making process of local public authorities, efficiency in public funds spending, quality, and easily accessible services. Local public administrations have responded to these requests by transforming the way they provide their services. A citizen-oriented public administration involves the provision of online services, the publication on websites of decisions adopted and/or under public consultation, the publication of employment notices, but also other useful information for citizens. Using ITC technologies, it is possible to ensure and verify compliance with the principle of transparency in the local public administration. To analyze the degree of transparency of local public authorities, an evaluation methodology was deployed and a study was carried out on 48 county seat municipalities in Romania, to which Bucharest municipality and the six component sectors are added. The data was extracted from the websites of the municipalities and points were given for each criterion included in the methodology created. An aggregate score was calculated for each public authority included in the study. The results obtained are useful for decision-makers in the local public administration, but also for citizens, who can comparatively appreciate the degree of social responsibility of the local public authority.

The concept of corporate social responsibility of public administration is relatively new. However, it has been a long time since well-known international organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank, and others have been publishing several performance indicators related to social responsibility. Moreover, the European Union and the European Commission have also been publishing reports regarding a series of aspects of socioeconomic life which—to some extent—fall within the responsibility of member-states’ public administrations. Finally, there are private institutions such as the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) which also provide performance indicators for public agencies. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that the use of such indicators referring to public administrations can show how well public administrations do their work. In other words, these indicators can be a proxy for public administration’s social responsibility.

This chapter summarizes each previous chapter, and it highlights the approach that each chapter has taken to the CSR of public administration. The chapters provide different rationales for the existence of the CSR of public administration: market and organizational failure; self-examination, professional practice, and political opportunity; externalities and the relationship with the trust in government; and finally, Carroll’s pyramid. Based on the summaries, the conclusion identifies three models for the CSR of public administration. Model 1 sees ‘public administration as ancillary or co-responsible of mainstream CSR’, that is, supporting the CSR of business. Model 2 takes place when ‘public administration is called to self-examination, but along the parameters of mainstream CSR, like an emphasis on CO2’. In Model 3, in turn, ‘public administration is deemed responsible for its own core function’ that is, management and policy implementation. This book calls us to action: ‘What needs to be done is to label public administration performance as social responsibility’ and ‘not hesitate to call measures of performance the social responsibility of public administration.’ Such models have nuances: there are variations and specificities that enrich the landscape and are worth further investigation. In this book, we started a small spark and hope a bigger flame will follow.