Corporate social responsibility： Spin or reality

程瑶

【摘 要】企業社会责任逐渐成为企业策略中不可缺少的组成部分。世界商业理事会认为企业的可持续发展离不开诚实正直、健全的价值观以及良好的社会责任。虽然企业策略是由企业的领导者制定，但是企业生命的源泉来自于不同的利益相关者。企业需要精确定位与之相关的社会责任，而企业利益相关者则是企业社会责任发展的背后推力。但是在企业社会责任没有统一定论的背景下定位企业的社会责任是比较困难的。此外，怎样评估企业的可靠性以及利益相关者责任的有效性也还不完善。本文认为评价企业承诺的可信度，利益相关者扮演着至关重要的角色。故此本文主要从以下几个方面进行阐述：企业社会责任的重要性；与利益相关者有关的企业社会责任理论的发展；利益相关者的参与，并且以一些企业为例做进一步的说明；讨论利益相关者的责任，并给出一些建议。

【关键词】企业；社会责任；利益相关者

1. Introduction

The reality is that it is a general trend that the CSR becomes an integral part of organizational strategy. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has noted that a coherent CSR strategy based on integrity， sound values and a long-term approach offers clear business benefits to companies and contributes to the well-being of society （Corporate Social Responsibility： An Implementation Guide for Canadian Business： 2006）. And stakeholders are the driving force behind the development of CSR. Although the strategies are made by leaders， the source of organizational life comes from various stakeholders.

The spin is that organization needs to precisely locate the main social responsibilities which are relevant to the business. However it is hard to identify the relevant responsibilities under the background of no universal agreement of CSR. Besides， how to assess the reliability of the organization and the positive initiative of stakeholders responsibility are also very unstable. In this research， it suggests that in order to measure the credibility of organizational commitment， the stakeholder plays a vital role.

The following paragraphs will demonstrate separately， first is the importance of CSR； second is the development of CSR theories which are relevant to the stakeholders； third is the stakeholder engagement， meanwhile it will also give some organizations as examples to do further explanation； moreover it will discuss the stakeholders responsibilities and give some advices and finally come to the conclusion.

2. Why CSR important

“There are countless win-win opportunities waiting to be discovered： every activity in a firms value chain overlaps in some way with social factors — everything from how you buy or procure to how you do your research — yet very few companies have thought about this. The goal is to leverage your company's unique capabilities in supporting social causes， and improve your competitive context at the same time. The job of today's leaders is to stop being defensive and start thinking systematically about corporate responsibility.”

Michael Porter 2005

The above passage shows that the CSR has become more and more important in business world. There are five main elements explain why CSR becomes crucial in organization. （William， Werther and Chandler： 2011， Corporate Social Responsibility： An Implementation Guide for Canadian Business： 2006）

* Globalization -- with increasing cross-border trade， multinational enterprises and global supply chains， it manifests organization need meet the various expectations from different cultures and wide range potential stakeholders in the world.

* Governmental institutions such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Labor Organization and Non-governmental institutions such as Environmental Protection Agency （EPA）， the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission （EEOC） have developed relative declarations and principles to guide social norms for acceptable conduct.

* Convenient and free flow communication technologies make the organizations activities more transparent and easily disseminate information about them.

* There is increasing awareness of citizens that organization should build their own criteria to deal with the issues which may relate to the society and environment.

* Organization themselves also realize that effective CSR strategies can bring more opportunities and enhance the competitive abilities of organization

It supposes that CSR can bring potential benefits for organization （Blowfield， and Murray： 2008， Corporate Social Responsibility： An Implementation Guide for Canadian Business： 2006）：

· Sustainable economic development

· Improving competitiveness and market positioning

· Improving organizational human resource and reputation management

· Building effective and efficient operation and supply chain

· Better prediction and management of an ever-expanding spectrum of opportunities and risks

· Enhancing adaptability to changes

· More vigorous “social license” to operate in the community.

3. The revolution of CSR

The corporate social responsibility is a wide and cross range concept， until now there is still no agreement of the definition of CSR. But there is agreement that organizations have gradually realized that their actions and decisions are restrained by the society and environment ethical principles whether they are willing or unwilling. Hence along with the change of corporate responsibility， the definition is inevitably changed （Blowfield and Murray： 2008）.

Generally， CSR is perceived as commitment of organizations integrate social， environmental and economic concerns into their values， culture， decision making， strategy and operations in a transparent and accountable manner and thereby establish better practices within the organizations， create wealth and improve society （Corporate Social Responsibility： An Implementation Guide for Canadian Business： 2006）.

In 1970 the famous economist Friedman supposed that the only one responsibility organization should take is profits and there are not other justifications for the existence of organization. On the other hand， the spotlight is on the idea of corporate responsibility， which leads the CSR into a new field of discussion. In later1790s， corporate social responsiveness is brought out by Ackerman and Bauer （1976）， it concerned about the organizational reaction to the social expectations. Besides， the concept of the organization should responsible for a variety of stakeholders is introduced at the same time （Carroll： 1979； Preston and Post， 1975）. As Donaldson and Dunfee （1999） proposal that the organization needs a license to operate. They suppose that the prosperity of organization tightly connect with the social expectations which come from stakeholders.

After years of hard effort by the Environmental Protection Agency （EPA）， the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission （EEOC）， the Occupational Safety and Health Administration （OSHA）， and the Consumer Product Safety Commission （CPSC）， the corporate responsibility finally become legislation in 1970（Carroll： 1991）. From this moment， organization should consider seriously about their responsibility both to society and law besides the core principle of earning the maximum profit.

In 1980s and 1990s there was intense debate of stakeholders. These theories emphasize that organization should involve business into the CSR to satisfy the requirements of various stakeholders （Freeman： 1984， Donaldson and Preston： 1995， Jones： 1995）. The others argue that the role of organization in implementing their responsibility and maintaining sustainability of organization （e.g. environmental concerns）

It should be noted that the classic pyramid theory which was brought out by Carroll in 1990s. Pyramid theory can be seen as the derivative of the three concentric circles theory which was developed by the Committee for Economic Development in 1970. In the centre of circle is the economic function of organization， the middle function of organization is that organizational actions and decision should be based upon the social value， and the external circle includes other unsettled responsibilities caused by extra expectation from society. On this basis， Carroll gives more specific range of CSR. He suggests that there are four elements in CSR： economic， legal， ethical， and philanthropic. The most primary purpose of organization is through providing products and services to societal members to pursue the maximum profit. “Before it was anything else， business organization was the basic economic unit in our society” （Carroll： 1991）. Legal responsibilities： while the organization pursues the profit is expected to comply with the laws. Carroll depict ethical responsibilities is the activities that are expected by stakeholders， even though they are not codified into law. It is a higher requirement from the stakeholders. Philanthropic responsibilities is on the top of pyramid which composed by actions that will promote human welfare and goodwill. There is distinction between philanthropic responsibilities and ethical responsibilities. Ethical responsibilities are the obligation to do what is right， just， and fair and to avoid or minimize harm to stakeholders （such as， employees， customers， the environment）. Although philanthropic is advocated， it is less important than the other responsibilities. In other words if the organization do not provide any donation or charity to the communities it do not mean that this organization is unethical. So the precondition of philanthropic responsibilities is to conduct the other responsibilities very well.

More recently is the corporate citizenship theory which supposes that the organization should be as a member in society and the question is what the organization should do. The concept of strategic CSR appears which is concerned by Baron （2001） and Waldman et al. （2004）. They suppose the organization should integrate the CSR into business strategies for the sustainability of organization which means the organization takes the CSR as core value and driver in applying the strategies. To be more specific Werther and Chandler （2010： P xiii） portray the strategic CSR is the incorporation of a holistic CSR perspective within a firms strategic planning and core operations so that the firm is managed in the interests of a board set of stakeholders to achieve maximum economic and social value over the medium to long term.

4. Engaging stakeholders into business

Business is not isolation. It is not only affected by the internal environment， but also the external environment. To be more specific， it connects with various stakeholders in these different areas. CSR and stakeholders have great impact on each other （Donaldson and Preston， 1995； Cornelissen， 2004）. Organization involves a lot of stakeholders， different stakeholders will have different requirements， and then it is very important to manage various stakeholders to minimize the conflicts which may be appeared among different stakeholders. This will implicate in the organizational survival and sustainability. As Jones， Bowd and Tench （2009： P 306） said： “How needs， rights and obligations are prioritised and met in the context of changing internal and external environmental factors can determine business， life， death and growth.” In other words， the organizational CSR strategies are based upon various stakeholders， such as customer， communities， and environment groups. Through managing the expectation of stakeholders the organization can be operated more rational， productive， social responsible and profitable （Jones， Bowd and Tench： 2009， P306）.

The concept of CSR is too wide and it is very difficult for organization to pay attention to everything， this lead to problem that how to put the theory into practice. As Rochlin and Googins （2005， p. 2） said： “Increasingly， businesses are becoming exposed to the risks associated with the gap between what they say and what they do.” Therefore it is very crucial for the organization to identify what aspects of CSR they should focus on. In order to successfully narrow down and locate the main CSR strategies which may be adopt by organization， the organization should identify the key stakeholders and collecting the feedback from stakeholders to improve their CSR strategies （Jones， Bowd and Tench： 2009）.

Freeman （1984） supposes that a stakeholder as any individual or group who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organizations objectives. In order to narrow down the stakeholders， Freeman thought that there are two types of stakeholders， primary stakeholders who are the reasons for the existence of organization， such as customers， suppliers and secondary stakeholders who have great impact or are affected by organization， such as media. Johnson et al （2008） propose that the organization need evaluate and identify the influence stakeholders from a variety of stakeholders. The level of power and interest of stakeholder is different， from the table below Johnson suggests that stakeholders who have high level of power and interest will be defined as the key group which is the primary aim that organization need to understand.

Moreover， there are five steps for organization to engage stakeholders into business， they are （UNEP： 2005）：

· Identifying the companys business objectives and how they relate to stakeholders

· Analyzing existing relationships

· Deciding what kind of relationship the company wants with different stakeholder groups

· Assessing the competencies， and capacities， of stakeholder groups to engage with company and the appropriate forms of engagement

· Following up on the outputs from engagement， and monitoring and maintaining the partnership over time

The responsive approach to CSR which brought out by Tullberg （2005） suggests organizations should meet the requirements and demands from society， in other words this approach allows leaders to predict the public attitude and reaction， reducing the probability of damage and make or modify organizational strategies to maximum explore the potential of organization. Such company like the Co-operative Bank in the UK， CSR is a core feature that underpins， informs and guides their business strategy， operation and practice （Jones， Bowd and Tench： 2009， P305）.

The past organizational model such as the shareholder business model （Friedman， 1962） thought that the organization need focus on the interest of organization and barely no concern about the environment， local community， employees welfare and rights and so on， examples like American banks and the sub-prime lending crisis had fully verify this point. Scholars have recognized the importance of this point， therefore improved the theory to suit for changeable environment， Freemans （1984） stakeholder model which supposes the organization should pay more attention to deal with other non-profit issues.

In“Tony and the Tories： this is what we mean” written by Hutton et al. （1996， p. 88）， they demonstrate the meaning of “stakeholder economy and society” is： “Any civilized community should be justly concerned to create as much wealth as it can， to ensure that income and wealth are fairly shared and that centres of private and public power are properly accountable. The aim must be to build a free， moral， socially cohesive society based on universal membership， social inclusion and organized around the market economy.”

5. Organization examples

The world largest retailer Walmart pays more attention on the requirements of the key stakeholders， it can be known by the new logo （left one is old logo， right is new logo）. The new logo shows they care about the stakeholder interest as well as the society. In the speech named Wal-Mart： Twenty First-Century Leadership （2005） by the CEO Lee Scott， one of goals of Walmart is according to key stakeholders to improve the whole company. He also commits that Walmart will achieve three environmental goals （P 5）：

· To be supplied 100% by renewable energy

· To create zero waste

· To sell products that sustain our resource and environment

Source： http：//www.designlessbetter.com/blogless/posts/global-

domination-always

What Walmart do has demonstrated that no matter the stakeholders think about or not the CSR from a long term， they have taken CSR as their strategies for the future interests of organization.

Another company which is built upon the stakeholders expectations and concerns is Ben & Jerrys which means they put the stakeholders at the core of their business. As said in their mission statement “Underlying the mission of Ben & Jerrys is the determination to seek new and creative ways of addressing all three parts， while holding a deep respect for individuals inside and outside the company and for the communities of which they are a part.” （Source： http：//www.benjerry.com/activism/mission-statement/）. Meanwhile Ben & Jerrys also is the first organization to allow an independent social audit of its business operations （William， Werther and Chandler： 2011， P 374）. But since Ben & Jerrys is taken by the Unilever， in order to match for the Unilevers policies there is change in Ben & Jerry. This shift is good or bad for the stakeholders still unknown， but this company actually develops and expands based upon its initial success. From the other side， Unilever can benefit from this acquisition.

The good example of failure to take consideration of society which leads to the collapse is Countrywide. Countrywide blindly seek for the profits which neglects the consideration of complicate societal environment， finally leading to the financial crisis caused by rapid growth in Alt A and sub-prime mortgages. Although organization can benefit from meeting the demands of their stakeholders， it should notice the fact is that their products are not necessarily need and customers may not completely understand （Baker： 2008）. This example highlights the significance of CSR again. It illustrates that when the organization pursuit of profits they should consider the result of this action and the responsibilities for the society.

6. Stakeholders responsibility

When people blindly ask organizations should responsible for their actions， there is a question--does the stakeholder also have responsibilities for the CSR strategies in organization？ In other words， does the stakeholder have the obligation to help design the society in which they want to live and work？ （William， Werther and Chandler： 2011， P 57） Comparing with their own interest， how evident and measurable of stakeholders concern about whether the organization put their words into practice. To be more specific， does the customer continue buying the cheapest product on the shelf while failing to ask the necessary questions to determine whether a company is socially responsibility？ Will other stakeholders question whether pronouncements of social responsibility are merely superficial public relations attempts to raise the companys profile？ （William， Werther and Chandler： 2011， P 65） Hence it is very important to educate the stakeholders to more actively involve in discharging their obligations， for example， to tell the organization their true feeling instead of something they think they should say.

It supposes the relationship between organization and stakeholder is not one way but the interaction which influences each other and mutual supervision and restriction. When the organization should account for its action， the stakeholder also needs take the responsibility of supervision the organization to create better society. No matter the organization or stakeholder， it should have conscious awareness. Because we live in the world we create.

7. Conclusion

Along with the awareness of CSR becoming stronger， organizations no longer just focus on their economic benefits， some organizations need to tackle with moral obligations from both society and environment when they have to and result in serious loss， but some organizations have forecasted this trend and modify their strategies for a long time and they create opportunities and challenges which bring them a lot of fortune. The close relationship between corporate social responsibility and business success can not be ignored anymore. Hence， the organization should learn how to balance the relationship between organizational profits and society for the sustainability and prosperity of organization. As the development of internet， the stakeholders will have more opportunities to convey their information and monitor the credibility of the organization. To engage the stakeholder into business can help the organizations proactively manage crisis and take advantages of opportunities. Through this way organization can contribute to both their own wealth and societal wealth， consequently stakeholders and organizations have obligations to create more transparent and responsible context.

【Reference】

[1]Ackerman， R. W. and Bauer， R. A. （1976）. Corporate Social Responsiveness： The Modern Dilemma. Reston， VA： Reston Publishing.

[2]Baker， M. （2008）. Fiancial Services： Will Banks Ever Treat Customer Fairely？ Ethical Corporation. Available at http：//www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp？ContentID=5807 [assessed on 24 April]

[3]Baron， D. （2001）. ‘Private politics， corporate social responsibility and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy， Vol.10， pp. 7–45.

[4]Blowfield， M. and Murray， A. （2008）. Corporate Responsibility： a critical introduction. New York： Oxford University Press.

[5]Carroll， A. B. （1979）. ‘A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. Academy of Management Review， Vol.4， No.4， pp.497-505.

[6]Carroll， A. B. （1991）. “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility： toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders”. Business Horizons.

[7]Cornelissen， J. （2004）. Corporate Communications， Theory and Practice. London： Sage Corporate Social Responsibility： An Implementation Guide for Canadian Business （2006）. Available at

http：//www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/csr-rse.nsf/eng/rs00126.html [accessed 18 April 2011]

[8]Donaldson， T. and Preston， L. （1995）. ‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation： concepts， evidence， and implications. Academy of Management Review. Vol.20， No.1， pp.65-91

[9]Donaldson， T. and Dunfee， T. W. （1999）. Ties That Bind： A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics. Boston： Harvard Business School Press.

[10]Freeman， R. E. （1984）. Strategic Management： A Stakeholder Perspective. Englewood Cliffs： Prentice Hall.

[11]Friedman， M. （1962）. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago： University of Chicago Press

[12]Friedman， M. （1970）. The Social Responsibility of a Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine， 13 September 1970， p.122-126

[13]Hutton， W.， Field， F.， Kay， J.， Marquand， D. and Gray， J. ‘‘Tony and the Tories： this is what we mean.Observer. 7 July 1996， pp. 88-92.

[14]Johnson， G.， Scholes， K. and Whittington， R. （2008）. Exploring Corporate Strategy （8th ed）. London： Prentice Hall.

[15]Jones， B.， R， Bowd and R， Tench. （2009）. Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility： competing realities. Social Responisbility Journal. Vol. 5， No. 3， pp. 300-310

[16]Jones， T. （1995）. ‘Instrumental stakeholder theory： a synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review. Vol.20， pp.404–37.

[17]Preston， L. E. and Post， J. E. （1975）. Private Management and Public Policy： The Principle of Public Responsibility. Englewood Cliffs： Prentice Hall.

[18]Porter， M. （2005）. Business and Society Conference on Corporate Citizenship， sponsored by the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. Available at

http：//www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/csr-rse.nsf/eng/rs00126.html [accessed 18 April 2011]

[19]Rochlin， S， A. and Googins， B.K. （2005）. The Value Proposition for Corporate Citizenship.