The Social Domain in CSR and Sustainability

A Critical Study of Social Responsibility among Governments, Local Communities and Corporations

Monica Thiel

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317015789
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Business
• Thema: Etica aziendale

How can greater understanding of social responsibility within a local context empower companies, local communities and governments? What is the relationship among business, local communities and governments with regard to social responsibility in developing, emerging and advanced economies? What is the nature of the relationship between individual responsibility, social responsibility and profit? These are some of the most meaningful questions in the CSR and sustainability sphere today - and yet hitherto the 'social domain' has received remarkably little detailed coverage. In this fascinating book Monica Thiel tackles these questions head-on; discussing the lack of social responsibility engagement with local communities by corporations and governments, and the lack of reciprocal social responsibility and sporadic participation from individuals and local communities themselves. The Social Domain in CSR and Sustainability provides a new and unique contribution to the body of knowledge in CSR and sustainability. With practical tools for business, government and local community leaders faced with challenging societal constraints and consumer and public demands on a daily basis - readers will be in a better position to manage and develop CSR and sustainability strategies, a task increasingly crucial for successful managers and leaders in companies, local communities and governments.

CHAPTER 1

The Interchange of Societal Values and Beliefs, Trust, Competitiveness and Expectations within CSR and Sustainability

This chapter will discuss four social responsibility knowledge gaps in CSR and sustainability and three drivers of CSR and sustainability that provide a foundation of how society co-creates, changes expectations and drives social responsibility among local communities, corporations and governments worldwide. In addition, a brief overview of the qualitative and quantitative research methodology with a discussion of societal values/beliefs, trust, competitiveness and expectations will be examined within CSR and sustainability.

Changing Societal Expectations in Social Responsibility

Social responsibility within business is a complex circumstance and is not focused solely on increasing profits and enhancing reputation management. “Self-image concerns” may drive how individuals and groups promote social responsibility (Benabou and Tirole, 2010: p. 3). On the other hand, “when everyone behaves in a socially responsible way, no one gets credit for it” (ibid., p. 7). Thus, changing societal expectations require corporations to critically evaluate social trends and social responsibility in a “competitive world” (Uddin, Hassan and Tarique, 2008: p. 2000). Where do societal expectations originate and how do they fuse to become accepted by the corporation? It can be argued it is due to unregulated CSR reporting (Mersereau and Mottis, 2011). Society is socially constructing global social responsibility rules and frameworks for communicating corporations’ social responsibly such as the International Labor Organization (ILO), UN Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), Socially Responsible Investing (SRI), Integrated Reporting (IR) and so on. These frameworks seek to institutionalize CSR on a global level through the creation of norms, rules and standardized procedures for CSR thereby creating “isomorphic pressure to institutionalize CSR in business” (Brammer, Jackson and Matten, 2012). Accordingly, if society expects corporations and governments to go beyond compliance then society must follow. Is social responsibility just another formal legal process whereby non-criminal forms of responsibility are socially acceptable in society? Bernabou and Tirole (2010) suggest economic agents may want to promote values that are not shared by lawmakers. Furthermore, “human sociality” highlights the tendencies of individuals to seek social status, to build and maintain social identities, and to cooperate with others under certain conditions (World Bank Development Report, 2015: p. 42). Since social preferences are heterogeneous, it is inevitable that some consumers, investors or workers’ values will not be fully reflected in policy. Clearly, social responsibility encompasses values that must be changed. Values have always played a primary role in shaping society (Wartick and Wood, 1998). Societal norms and values play an integral role in business success. However, corporations have the same citizenship expectations as society (Freeman, 2002). Therefore, it can be argued, business values are simply a reflection of society’s values. Further to this, Porter and Kramer’s “shared value” strategic approach reveals how companies try to meet local communities’ expectations (2006: p. 1). There is further logic in that culture distinguishes corporations from each other (Schein, 1985) just as local community cultures select their preferred culture. Consequently, corporations and local communities have heterogeneous values and preferences that may be shared and diffused. Likewise, “society’s values and current levels of knowledge are reflected in companies’ activities and companies are judged according to current standards” (Van Marrewijk and Were, 2003; Noren, 2004). However, Kumar and Kumar propose the “non-existence of markets for many biological resources imply that the social value of biological resources can’t be derived from simple aggregation of their values to individuals in society, the sum of their private values” (2007: p. 812). Therefore, value judgments are necessary to determine uncertainties, risk and lack of knowledge (Weterings and Opschoor, 1994). In contrast, Swanson’s (1995) research findings on corporations’ value-driven (Maignan and Ralston, 2002) CSR initiatives are not dependent upon external social pressures. Further to this, should corporations integrate society’s values or should corporations limit society’s values and demands as these values may reduce a firm’s capacity to progress and compete?

Rights and freedoms play a critical role in social responsibility and are not static and universal. Moreover, rights and freedoms may consist of varying societal standards that are complex, socially driven outcomes and expectations of societies and communities who maintain and select their preferred or local expectations within the household or local community, while demanding universal expectations from businesses. As a result, specific social constraints should be managed to increase corporate profits. Moreover, “social and environmental performances are not seen as an end in themselves but as a source of competitive advantage or a condition to be competitive” (Valor, 2005: p. 199). Therefore, it can be argued, reciprocal societal standards must be managed and carefully selected by corporations resulting in the implementation and growth of business CSR activities as associated with erosion and dismantling of institutionalized social solidarity (Kinderman, 2010). It is clear from the social responsibility literature that people carry their individual values and beliefs with them regardless of established social norms or laws resulting in a deeper and multilayered social domain among local communities, corporations and governments. Social responsibility overlaps societal progress and societal advancement to increase individuals and local communities’ capacity for national and global competitive advantage within economic, environmental and social means above and beyond socio-economic progress. Moreover, the study investigated possible associations and outcome expectancies of the variables between local communities, governments and corporations.

Four Knowledge Gaps in Social Responsibility in the Social Domain

There is much literature published about the role of CSR and sustainability for corporations and governments (Clarkson, 1995; Williams and Aguilera, 2008). However, little attention is paid to the one-sided social domain concepts of sustainability and CSR (Wiersum, 1995; Littig and Grießier, 2005; Marquis, Glynn and Davis, 2007) as corporations carry the weight of social responsibility while government initiates regulatory behavior for societal welfare leading to a lack of reciprocal social responsibility and sporadic participation from local communities. In addition, the social domain is discussed significantly less than the environmental and economic domains (Opp and Saunders, 2013). In general, scholars depict social responsibility in CSR as business and society reciprocation (Bowen, 1953; Heald, 1970; Preston and Post, 1975; Wood, 1991; Carroll, 1999; Margolis and Walsh, 2001; Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes, 2003; Dentchev, 2004; Garriga and Melé, 2004; Kotler and Lee, 2005; Falck and Heblich, 2007). The Iron Law of Social Responsibility indicates that “society grants legitimacy and power to business. In the long run, those who do not use power in a manner which society considers responsible will lose” (Davis, 1973: p. 314). Moreover, according to Carroll (1979) it is the role of business leaders to decide which domains of CSR the company will emphasize and implement. Thus, the company is responsible for the impact of its decisions and activities on society and the environment including the health and welfare of society, expectations of stakeholders, and compliance with laws consistent with international norms of behavior. This further displays “social responsibility being accountable for the social affects the company has on people—even indirectly” (Uddin, Hassan and Tarique, 2008: p. 205). Evidently, social responsibility has developed with businesses managing societal responsibility expectations, leaving social responsibility the obligation of corporations instead of society, and resulting in four knowledge gaps.

KNOWLEDGE GAP ONE: SOCIO-ECONOMICS AS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Consumer, employee and occupational health and safety are some of the socio-economic standards used to depict social responsibility in the social domain (Tumay, 2009). Consequently, an under-developed social domain drives social responsibility within socio-economics. As a result, understanding economic and social responsibility within interactions among societal variables is inadequate (Meadowcroft, 1999). Furthermore, the human component of sustainability science may be following the social domains of CSR and sustainability in that the social is simply supporting the socio-economic needs of society. Although some scholars use decision-making and other psychological theories to understand society and social responsibility within sustainability, the social impacts and outcomes are apportioned and portrayed as socio-economic progress and do not introduce greater social responsibility.

KNOWLEDGE GAP TWO: SOCIAL WELL-BEING AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Social well-being (Prescott-Allen, 2001) and social development (Polanyi, 2001) play central roles in social sustainability. However, economic and social development does not emerge and move in balance within sustainable development (Magis and Shinn, 2009). Therefore, highlighting the primary role of societal well-being creates limitations to the advancement of the social domain of sustainability. Furthermore, the emphasis on societal welfare and social well-being appeases the social domain as supporting people’s needs and issues while promoting a passive and sporadic participatory role of society in sustainability. Moreover, focusing on societal well-being issues such as gender equality, equity, participation and social justice is supporting social fragmentation due to differing individual and societal ontological preferences.

Parris and Kates (2003) describe the social domain in sustainable development as a community of cultures, groups and places, society institutions, social capital, states and regions and people concerned with child survival, life expectancy, education, equity and equal opportunity while Dahlsrud identifies the social domain of CSR as “the relationship between business and society” whereby corporations “contribute to a better society,” “integrate social concerns in their business operations” and “consider the full scope of their impact on communities” (2006: p. 4). Thus, individuals are autonomous and free to create value for themselves in line with the mutual interests of stakeholders without reciprocation from the corporation. Furthermore, companies seem to have the upper hand in how poverty reduction will proceed through “profit-making, win-win situations and consensus outcomes in multi-stakeholder arrangements” without critical “developing impact assessment” (Prieto-Carron et al., 2006: p. 978). As an illustration, the local community provides permission for a company to develop operations and receive benefits from the company’s financial and social contributions to the local community (Freeman, 2002).

KNOWLEDGE GAP THREE: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF STAKEHOLDERS

Examining stakeholder engagement is vital for understanding societal expectations and social responsibility within the social domain of CSR and sustainability (Freeman, 1984; Freeman, Harrison and Wicks, 2007). Similarly, sustainability challenges are complex problems that necessitate stakeholder participation (Wiek et al., 2012a). Alon et al. (2010) portray stakeholder concerns within the community as culture, education, well-being, public safety, and protection of the natural environment. Nevertheless, there are differing levels of engagement that could change at any time and impinge on a corporation’s sustainability initiatives negatively. Therefore, focusing on key stakeholders helps to provide better management of societal uncertainty and complexity. However, some CSR scholars suggest measurement inaccuracies (Waddock and Graves, 1997) and potential future events (Ulmann, 1985) that promote theoretical and empirical restrictions of the social domain. Furthermore, “current sustainability science efforts do not sufficiently engage with the affected and responsible stakeholder groups, and fail in contributing significantly to solution options and transformational change” (Wiek et al., 2012b). This may result in stakeholder unsuitability (Wood and Jones, 1995) and limitations of relationships between corporations and society. For instance, “roles of CSR in community development refer to the ways the responsible behavior is perceived by a community of stakeholders and how impacts are felt by them” (Ismail, 2009: p. 207). This implies corporations are responsible for societal benefits without reciprocation from society. As a result, corporations are limited in their social impacts and initiatives because society separates itself from the responsibility relationship and deliberates responsibility to the corporation.

KNOWLEDGE GAP FOUR: UNEQUAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AMONG CORPORATIONS, LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND GOVERNMENTS

Developing a society based on meeting its needs without responsibility and competitiveness is unsuitable. Furthermore, not all uncertainties within the social decision-making domain will be resolved (Newig, Pahl-Wostl and Sigel, 2005). Corporations frequently struggle with local community engagement and responsibility. Nolan, Shipman and Rui describe perplexing situations in which local norms and local human rights may be contradictory (2004). Sustainability indicators should be stratified to include local indictors within local communities (Corbiere-Nicollier et al., 2002) and develop over time as communities become involved and existing conditions change (Carruthers and Tinning, 2003). Moreover, the social domain in CSR and sustainability does not adequately address society’s role in social responsibility. Instead, the social domain describes people surrounding CSR and sustainability initiative and issues. Furthermore, the social domain is defined as romanticizing innocent people in society with rights and privilege of sporadic participation that demand higher social responsibility standards from governments and corporations without reciprocation to the governments or corporations upon whom they depend for their well-being.

CSR and sustainability definitions, theories and methods are socially constructed in similar and very diverse ways, and are crucial for understanding multiple realities of social responsibility within local communities, governments and corporations. Furthermore, the social domain has many differing definitions, methods and theories of society’s role and the local community’s role in social responsibility resulting in non-reciprocal and unequal social responsibility from local communities to corporations. Consequently, a more accurate representation of social responsibility could be accomplished through investigating society’s role and construction of CSR and sustainability with corporations and governments. Moreover, where do CSR and government responsibility end and the local community’s responsibility begin? “Responsibility, does not arise from within people nor can it be imposed externally by some supraindividual body. Rather, it depends on the structure and form of our social relations and the way people are located within them” (McNamee and Gergen, 1999: p. 79). In addition, the local community’s role is oftentimes “culturally constructed” for its own collective future (Gergen and Gergen, 2000: p. 4). Apparently, personal and societal freedom precludes responsibility from the informal society requiring the formal society within institutions and partnerships and alliances to sustain social responsibility while individuals and local communities within the informal society are free to drive and construct social responsibility ad hoc. Henceforth, the social domain is socially constructed and sustained by the formal and informal society due to unequal social responsibility among local communities, governments and corporations.

Overview of Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology

In order to understand how corporations, governments and local communities impact each other, an examination of practitioners’ values and beliefs, trust and competitiveness in CSR and sustainability is necessary. Evaluating the social domain in CSR and sustainability requires qualitative methods to describe perceptions of social responsibility instead of quantifying social cause and effect for the generation of new knowledge (Pini, 2004). The methodology incorporates a global multilevel micro–meso–macro framework to challenge current primary constructs of the social domain. The micro system domain is defined as individual and the macro system domain will be defined as social. The meso dimension will focus on a variety of differing micro and macro changing dynamics within the independent and dependent variables. This framework will help to determine gaps in social and individual construction of social responsibility among corporations, governments and local communities. Since the social domain consists of complex phenomenon, a mixed-mode design utilizing positivist and interpretive methods within a quantitative and qualitative research framework was implemented to examine possible relationships of differing and multiple realities of social variables (Burns and Grove, 2005).

The data results provide guidance on how practitioners from corporations, governments and non-profit organizations and NGOs perceive trust, competitiveness and values and beliefs and how these shape, direct and impact relationships and social responsibility challenges among local communities, governments and corporations. The survey and interview questions defined CSR and sustainability as economically driven with environmental and social aspects. The social aspects acknowledge wealth alone does not promote and sustain the well-being and success of a society. Furthermore, social responsibility contains components of societal progress and societal advancement to increase individuals and local communities’ capacity for national and global competitive advantage within economic, environmental and social means above and beyond socio-economic progress.

Thematic analysis was utilized for practitioners’ answers to interview questions. A web-based survey collected data from practitioners worldwide. SPSS version 20 was u...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Cover Page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• About the Author
• Introduction: Locating the Social Domain in Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
• 1 The Interchange of Societal Values and Beliefs, Trust, Competitiveness and Expectations within CSR and Sustainability
• 2 Six Constituents of Social Domain Fragmentation in CSR and Sustainability
• 3 Human Bias and Social Responsibility Fragmentation in CSR and Sustainability
• 4 The Relationships of Governments, Local Communities and Corporations in Social Responsibility
• 5 Social Domain Strategies
• Appendix
• References
• Index