Monday, March 4, 2019

Corporate Irresponsibility and Corporate Social Responsibility: Competing Realities

Social accountability Journal Emerald Article corporeal irduty and merged favorable function competing realities Brian J champions, Ryan Bowd, Ralph tench Article schooling To cite this roll Brian J matchlesss, Ryan Bowd, Ralph Tench, (2009), somatic irresponsibility and in in somatic loving responsibility competing realities, Social certificate of indebtedness Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 300 310 Permanent link to this document http//dx. doi. org/10. 108/17471110910977249 D quarterloaded on 14-10-2012 References This document adotains references to 45 separate documents Citations This document has been cited by 3 an just close other(prenominal) documents To copy this document email masterfessional persontected com Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription drive outd by UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald customaryation, then delight use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which universalation to write for and long-suffering guidelines ar available for all told. Please visit www. emeraldinsight. com/authors for more(prenominal) information.About Emerald www. emeraldinsight. com With all everywhere 2score years experience, Emerald Group produce is a leading indep arrestent publisher of world-wide research with squeeze in product line, friendship, public policy and education. In chalk up, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well(p) as an across-the- get along with range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the delegation on Publication Ethics (COPE) and besides deeds with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. incarnate irresponsibility and collective hearty responsibility competing realities Brian Jones , Ryan Bowd and Ralph Tench Brian Jones is a Senior Lecturer, Ryan Bowd is a Senior Lecturer and Ralph Tench is Professor in communications Education, all ground at Leeds calling School, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK. Abstr figure out Purpose Building on the work of Carroll this name attempts to unravel, explore and explain corporeal friendly responsibility (CSR) as a theoretical construct that has implications and consequences for corporal disposal in particular, and more spaciously speaking for the sparing, duty and ships company.It sends to extend Carrolls work on de? nitional constructs by re-examining most of the theoretical frameworks that underpin, inform and guide CSR. Design/methodology/ summateress Carroll identi? ed different levels, or a profit, of CSR and these argon outlined and the advantages and disadvantages of a pyramid, levels- base undertake discussed. The main contri nonwithstandingions of this term breathes is in its exploratio n of embodied social irresponsibility (CSI) as a fancy in contrast to CSR.Bowd, Jones and Tenchs CSI-CSR aspect is described, explained, analysed and used as a apprehensionual tool to micturate the theoretical move from a pyramid or level-based approach to a more dynamic framework of outline. Findings The proposition that CSI is split up suited to a sh atomic number 18owner championship pose and CSR sits more comfortably with a stakeholder pipeline manakin is examined. It is contested that people often wrongly equate CSR with c befree bodied actions. The CSI-CSR model take a crapes a theoretical framework close to which grounded a posteriori research sess be undertaken, utilise and on which it washstanddid deal be describe.Research limitations/implications This is a new ara of research that addresses a col in the literature and puts forward innovative theoretical models. Discussing the creation of irresponsibility makes for an interest theoretical move. I t questions the intellect that corporations and employment per se argon alship placeal or necessarily socially responsible. Originality/value In looking at and growth existing theoretical models, concepts and frameworks and exploring their merits, shortcomings and limitations, the member provide be of interest and relevance to the melodic line and faculty member communities.If there is such(prenominal) a thing as CSR then the implication is that there is such a thing as CSI and it is on this issue that this article check overks to promote and stimulate news. Key course merged social responsibility, contrast ethics Paper type Research paper mental home Corporations, their activities and governance have long been of interest to management and social scientists (see for good example, Sampson, 1983). As it has gained a higher pro? le on the political, stinting and phone line agendas in recent years (see for example, www. csr. gov. k commissioning of the European Commun ities, 2001, 2002), merged social responsibility (CSR) has received increased attention from academics (see Whetten et al. , 2002 Arpan, 2005 Evuleocha, 2005 Riese, 2007 Birch, 2008). integrated governance can be de? ned in a narrow and a broad expressive style. For those who de? ne it narrowly merged governance is largely interested with board level management issues. Reporting on the situation in the UK the Committee on the Financial Aspects of integrated government activity (1992, p. 15) described the term as the system by which companies are directed and controlled.Such a narrow de? nition, adopting and advocating as it does a top The authors would like to thank David Crowther and two anonymous re popular opinioners for their right-hand comments in developing this paper. rogue 300 j SOCIAL tariff diary j VOL. 5 no 3 2009, pp. 300-310, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 DOI 10. 1108/17471110910977249 down approach to management, serves to demonstrate by example the constituent(a) weaknesses of a command and control managerial style. Adopting both a croup up and top down approach to management can damp facilitate progress in regards to CSR.embodied governance is at least in part about managerial compliance with legitimate requirements surrounding CSR. judge the above, a more broad based de? nition index suggest that corporate governance permeates every level of the organisation, its activities and authentic day-to-day achievemental industrial plant. CSR is not con? ned to management exactly affects the whole organisation and its stakeholders (for a word of honor of the stakeholder model of the corporation recreate see Donaldson and Preston, 1995 Cornelissen, 2004). This article adopts a broad-based de? nition of corporate governance. Corporate citizenship is a term comm solitary(prenominal) used in the aforesaid(prenominal) debates. thither is lack of agreement on a common ordinary standardised de? nition of CSR and a s a result there is confusion and convergence in the plethora of terms used (see Nielsen and Thomsen, 2007, p. 25) This article facilitates de? ne elements of CSR, so aids brain of the term and in so doing can reform inform strategies for communication (Demetrious, 2008). CSR and corporate governance and citizenship are progressively debated academic issues (see, for example, Schleifer and Vishny (1997) www. csr. gov. uk).Much of the emphasis has been placed upon crinklees and business people to act in a more socially responsible manner and to acknowledge that stockholders are only one of a scrap of business stakeholders (Letza et al. , 2004). New and innovative ways to address and deal with issues emerge from the CSR and corporate governance agendas are more and more being sought. This article stresses the difference between corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) and CSR and contests that the dua enumerateic (or CSI-CSR bi-polar) model allows for great clearness and understanding of the concepts that constitute and de? ne these terms.It is suggested that CSI is a term relegate suited to describing the workings of the old stockholder business model (Friedman, 1962) and that CSR is more applicable to the workings of the new and emerging stakeholder business model (Freeman, 1984). The CSI-CSR model allows for discussion and positioning of issues round CSR. Communication about issues of social responsibility (Demetrious, 2008) vary according to whether it is dogmatic or responsible corporate action being reported. A range of inborn and external variables (see Figure 1), for example new technology, impact on businesses, what they do and how they perform.Such issues or variables may contain differing degrees of responsible and devil-may-care actions and activities. On one issue a corporation faculty have exemplary way notwithstanding on another it may perform poorly and requirement corrective action for example, a business may have near pol icies, lend oneselfs and procedures with regards to issues of diversity and equal opportunities but may be weak in terms of its commitment to Figure 1 CSI-CSR dichotomous model VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL responsibleness JOURNAL PAGE 301 j j addressing pollution and environmental concerns. The ways in which CSI and CSR issues are communicated differ.Quite manifestly responsible actions are, or ought to be trumpeted and freewheeling actions should be acknowledged. This is not forever and a day so. Some companies doing well in regards to CSR fail to communicate this message in effect or meaningfully. Some companies either knowingly or unknowingly doing staidly in regards to CSR, in other words they are at the CSI end of the spectrum, capacity have their practices exposed and thus be in shoot of a communication strategy to deal with such an unconstipatedt. The CSR pyramid and de? nitional constructs Corporate social responsibility is de? ned by the British government on their we bsite www. csr. gov. uk/whatiscsr. hypertext markup language as being about how business takes account of its economic, social and environmental impacts in the way it belongs maximising the bene? ts and minimising the downsides (Crown copyright, 2004). However this de? nition is only one of legion(predicate) and in some cases apparently polarised perspective tears of how CSR is de? ned in academic and professional estimate (see for example, Carroll, 1979, 1991). Furthermore it has been proposed that CSR can be seen to be a construct that is person to the stakeholder that de? nes it, and has been referred to as the social contract organisations have with their stakeholders (Bowd et al. 2005). Tullberg (2005) suggested two approaches to CSR one the antiphonary and the second the autonomous approach. The autonomous approach is described as more independent and involves the company ignoring other stakeholders opinions to formulate strategy. The responsive approach suggests organis ations should aim at being as responsive as possible to the demands emanating from society for them to act responsibly. This approach allows managers to think about the hypothetical public answer to situations and to consider strategies to deal with them. In carrying out an analysis of CSR de? itions in academic and professional literature Bowd et al. (2006, p. 150) captured a variety of points and attributes that are believed to make up CSR and suggest it involves . . . pro fighting(a) residential area involvement, philanthropy, corporate governance, corporate citizenship, addressing of social issues, a commitment to the quality of its products and services, human rights, health, safety and the environment. . . Carroll (1979, 1991) and Wood (1991) have contributed to structure de? nitions of the different levels at which organisations respond to their corporate social responsibilities. These levels of responsibility are de? ed as follows B Economic level. Organisation produces p roducts and services that society wants and sells them at a pro? t. Legal level. Organisation obeys all the laws and rules applied by the state. (E. g. tax, regulation, etc. ) Ethical level. Organisation views it as its responsibility to take on societys expectations of business to go beyond basic legal requirements and do what is just and fair, and their practice is re? ective of this. Discretionary level. Organisation goes beyond stakeholder views of what is just and fair, and is an exemplary corporate citizen ( suited from Carroll (1979, 1991)).B B B It is clear from the list above that Carrolls (1991) pyramid has at its base starting point the economy and economic performance. This is seen as pivotal and from this the second level concerned as it is with the law and legal rights, duties, rules and obligations are built. The third level is think on business ethics in a wide stakeholder context. lastly the discretionary level involves philanthropy and this is where an organisati on typically goes beyond its everyday evaluate duty and is thus deemed to be a good corporate citizen. Carroll (1991, p. 2) cautions that no.metaphor is perfect, and the CSR pyramid is no exception. It is intended to portray that the total CSR of business comprises distinct components that, taken together, constitute the whole. though the components have been hardened as separate concepts for discussion purposes, they PAGE 302 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j are not mutually exclusive and are not intended to juxtapose a ? rms economic responsibilities with its other responsibilities. These points remain pertinent to the circumstances of the twenty-first century.Nevertheless, Carrolls (1991) model can be critiqued on a number of grounds. Firstly in adopting and applying a level based pyramid approach it appears as a staged pecking order in which suit is based on ? xed criteria. It is contested here that this is not necessarily the case and that the concept of a levels based approach and ? xed criteria can act as a hindrance to further developing knowledge and understanding. Secondly the dynamism that characterises the social, economic and business world is only partially captured by the CSR pyramid.At times, like all models Carrolls pyramid appears as a theoretical annul outside from the intricate realities of the world it seeks to explain. Despite these criticisms Carrolls (1991) pyramid of corporate social responsibility does have varying degrees of theoretical and pragmatical utility. The performance of the model, together with the context in which it operates and an understanding of what it seeks to achieve at both the abstract and practical levels are in a number of respects of import in developing knowledge, making sense of and interpreting the world.The model is usable as it aids understanding of CSR, the issues that pertain to it and can therefore help improve communication. The model helps unravel the concept, establi shes key elements and distinguishes itself in its exploration of CSR. For this unsocial Carrolls (1979, 1991) pyramid deserves pl scrutinizes. Nevertheless, despite the merits of the model it is suggested here (see Figure 2) that it can be improved by addressing the staged level based hierarchy to make it a more ? uid concept better able to adapt to a world in a state of near perennial ? ux.Change is constant and theoretical models are required to re? ect this common truism. The CSI-CSR framework The CSI-CSR model As previously discussed in relation to the motley component parts and models available, CSR can mean different things to different people. It might be suggested that a clear de? nition of the term should be provided for policy makers, practitioners, activists, business and the community. This issue has already been alluded to in terms of the existing plethora of de? nitions in existence and it is unlikely that one unifying de? ition will be agree upon given(p) the com peting agendas of different stakeholders. Figure 2 CSI-CSR environmental dynamic model VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 303 j j It is contested here that traditionally CSR has been confused and equated with CSI. For some, CSR is understand as, or de? ned in relation to, CSI for example discussion of social responsibility issues often occurs when things are perceived as having gone wrong such as the recent have Stearns and Northern Rock crises.It is therefore prerequisite at the level of policy and practice and classical at a conceptual level to separate out and de? ne the terms. CSI can be de? ned in relation to the issues that encompass it. For the key differences between CSI and CSR please see Table I. CSI is about being reactive as unconnected to proactive in addressing corporate issues and the ways and means by which they relate to wider society. At its extreme CSI may entail breaking the law (e. g. Conrad Black, Robert Maxwell, Ernest Saunders). Compani es such as Enron, Worldcom, and amongst others Union Carbide typify CSI.Getting it wrong in relation to CSR, in other words operating in a CSI manner, can have bootleg social, economic and business consequences as the aforementioned companies demonstrate so well. The bi-polar model developed here is not a one-dimensional linear process, as depicted below, in which investors, producers and consumers move from being irresponsible to being socially responsible. The trajectory proposed in Figure 3, based as it is on the Whig view of history in which the march of progress is seen as inevitable, is an ideal to be striven towards. The Whig interpretation of history has been described by Marwick (1989, p. 05) as Table I CSR-CSI positions CSI environmental degradation and pollution are inevitable and little if anything can or should be done Employees are a choice to be exploited Minimal community consultation and involvement Failure to comply, or reluctant and only basic compliance with le gislation pertaining to CSR Ethical issues, if relevant at all are on the periphery of organisational working CSR Environmental degradation and pollution are not inevitable, should not be tolerated and it is important to raise awareness and commit to action Employees are a resource to be valued Maximise opportunities for community consultation and involvement abidance with, as well as policy and practical actions that go beyond the minimum legislative requirements for CSR Ethical issues are primal to and at the content of organisational working Social exclusion is an inevitable by product of the process of the Social inclusion helps to correct mart inef? ciencies market New technologies should be developed and introduced to the market Governance of companies is best left to shareholders and management survey with suppliers and customers on an unfair basis Pragmatic approach to CSR issues Sustainability de? ned in terms of business survival Pro? is the sole purpose of business an d should be achieved at any terms New technologies should be developed, tested, evaluated and if harmless introduced to the market Governance of companies involves shareholders, managers and a wide range of stakeholders including unions, works councils etc Work moderately with suppliers and customers Principled and pragmatic approach to CSR issues Sustainability de? ned in terms of business, environmental and community survival and mutual growth Pro? t is one of many purposes of business and should be achieved, but not at any cost Figure 3 Linear CSI-CSR model PAGE 304 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j . . the view, frequent in nineteenth century Britain, that history was steady progress towards full-grown ideas and institutions. The reality of CSI and CSR is something of a more complex dynamic. It is contested here that CSI and CSR lie at opposite ends of a continuum. On the CSI-CSR continuum individuals, groups and organisations are not dormant but move betw een the two extremes. Movement between the positions is two commissional and is determined by external environment factors such as legislation, politics, technology, ? nance, economics, culture and such like. One factor may prompt operation towards CSR whilst a counter prevailing factor may prompt movement towards CSI.The dichotomous CSI-CSR framework contains inwardly it an inherent tension that is irreconcilable given that CSR is an ever-evolving concept for example, the recent move towards bio-fuels intended to address the problem of temper change and global warming is now being called into question as a result of the in? ationary impact it is having on food prices. It is a two way variable process and movement is back, forwards and multi- directional depending on the factors driving the issues. CSI and CSR need to be unpackaged in order to better understand the complex nature of their components, function, operation and practice. The model outlined in Figure 1 depicts the two-way ? ow of CSI and CSR and has the potential to act as a tool for un-packaging and better understanding of the terms.The CSI-CSR model contributes to theoretical analysis and practical description and chronicle. Depending on which side of the model businesses choose to operate within CSR can be either a core or add on feature. For companies at the left of the spectrum and although there is other recent examples (e. g. Bear Stearns) nothing typi? es this better than Enron, CSR is an add on feature to their business operation an afterthought rather than forethought. For companies at the right of the spectrum, such as the Co-operative Bank in the UK, CSR is a core feature that underpins, informs and guides their business strategy, operation and practice.Corporate communication practitioners could use the model to map and monitor CSR issues as they impact on their organisation. The model can be used in both a reactive and a proactive way. For example management might undertake a m apping and monitoring proceeding, in other words a CSR audit, whereby they distinguish where their organisation lies on the CSI-CSR spectrum according to pro? t, respectable standards, human resources, community involvement and so on. Such an exercise will help practitioners diagnose areas in which their organisation is performing well with regards to CSR and identify areas for improvement. The model is useful in so far as it allows for the use of theory to communication practice.The CSI-CSR model provides for an analytical approach as opposed to a more prescriptive, staged approach to corporate citizenship (Mirvis and Googins, 2006). Some of the issues impacting on and shaping the changing dynamics of the CSI-CSR continuum are shown in Figure 1 and given more detail in Table I. Almost inevitably CSI and CSR are ideal types and as such have potential but also limits to their usefulness. As ideal types the two approaches shown in Table I serve to represent the extreme positions . Reality is often a complex mix of CSI and CSR modes of working. In a business, community or organisational setting CSR practice in part depends on various stakeholder requirements, customer and business ineluctably.Whether with regards to customers, suppliers or the wider community a mix of CSI and CSR mode of working can operate comfortably alongside and within the various functional areas of management and the unfeigned practices of the business itself. The CSI versus CSR framework allows managerial practitioners, theoreticians and others to discuss, contextualise and re? ect on their own practice in relation to CSR. In itself the model does not provide answers but as a managerial tool of analysis it allows for exploration of issues that may otherwise be ignored, or simply forgotten. Rochlin and Googins (2005, p. 2) write Increasingly, businesses are becoming exposed to the risks associated with the gap between what they assure and what they do. What they say might be equated with CSR and what they do might be equated with CSI. There is a gap between management rhetoric and reality as it is experienced and lived on the ground. The CSI-CSR framework allows management to acknowledge company VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 305 j j mistakes, errors, as well as misjudgements and thereby help minimise reputation and of the essence(p) business damage from the rhetoric-reality gap. Increasingly business recognises the need to move from an irresponsible to a responsible position on CSR/corporate citizenship issues, such as community involvement. The CSI-CSR model can be described as a conduit of corporate governance in that it acts as an enabler to action.As a problem-solving tool it can assist planning and thus help facilitate a potentially better managed, more productive and socially responsible, pro? table business. As previously mentioned a CSR audit can help pre-empt and react to problems and in this sense the model acts as a problem-s olving tool by identifying business and organisational areas for improvement. Having identi? ed areas that need addressing the business or organisation take to establish a CSR plan of action to limit potential damage and maximise potential gain. The plan will need to be monitored and reviewed and ought to have short, metier and long-term aims and objectives.In all of this both interior(a) and external communication is central to deliver effective corporate CSR change. It is suggested here that CSI is better suited to the workings of the old shareholder business model with the CSR approach being better suited to the needs of the new stakeholder business model (see for example, Hutton, 1995, 1999). The old shareholder business model (Friedman, 1962) with its overwhelming focus on pro? t and little or no regard to issues such as the environment is prone to the adoption of irresponsible business practices, a current example being the case of American banks and the sub-prime lending crisis. In contrast, the new stakeholder business model (Freeman, 1984) focuses on pro? but also seeks to address other issues of concern. As such, the CSI versus CSR model is representative of both broader and deeper structural change within the body politic, economy and society. Hutton et al. (1996, p. 88) write Any civilised community should be justly concerned to create as much wealth as it can, to ensure that income and wealth are fairly shared and that nerve centres of private and public power are properly accountable. The aim must be to lay down a free, moral, socially cohesive society based on universal joint membership, social inclusion and organised around the market economy. This is what we mean by the stakeholder economy and society.It can be argued that there has been a paradigmatic arouse from a business model and way of working in which shareholder interests and issues such as return on investment reign supreme, to one whereby different stakeholders compete to in? uence and shape the business agenda, so that shareholder interests are simply one of many. Holding this thought in reason another way of conceptualising the CSI-CSR model and its relationship with inhering and external environmental factors is detailed below. Figure 2 serves to show that inside and external variables as well as mixing with and affecting each other also interact and impact on the CSI-CSR continuum. The model conceived here is a rotating sports stadium intersected by its axis, the continuum. Business does not operate in a vacuum, it has rights as well as obligations and has competing needs to meet and address.Rights (see, amongst others, Locke, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1979 and Steiner, 1994), obligations (see Turner, 1986) and needs (see Ignatieff, 1990) change over time and between contexts. Customer needs do not unceasingly equate with supplier needs, for example in terms of delivery of goods. Compared to all the same the relatively recent past businesses today hav e obligations to address environmental and sustainability issues, for example by sourcing all or part of their energy needs from renewable sources. Businesses do have a right and are expected as well as encouraged to make a pro? t but not at any cost, for example by the use of child labour. Increasingly businesses have to meet increasing public expectations and to address legal obligations around environmental and sustainability issues. The need of business to make pro? can, and does at times, coincide as well as con? ict with its stated honourable aims and objectives. Competing stakeholders with differing needs, rights and obligations have to be managed to ensure con? ict is minimised, the business survives, grows and is able to meet its commitments to CSR. 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. Rotating as it does on its axis serves to demonstr ate that external as well as internal factors can at PAGE 306 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j times buffet direction of the sphere and movement on the axis.Equally so, movement on the CSI-CSR continuum, or axis, can affect change and direction in the external and internal environment. and then far the article has proposed a move outside(a) from a de? nition, explanation and analysis of CSR as a staged hierarchy as espoused by Carroll (1991) in his pyramid of corporate social responsibility. Here, an alternative conceptualisation is suggested based on the notion that CSI should be separated out from CSR to facilitate greater understanding of the terms, their meaning, nature and purpose. Issues interspersed and feeding into the CSI-CSR continuum are affected by internal and external environmental factors. Such factors give shape, form and context to corporate governance and CSR.Placing Carrolls (1991) pyramid of corporate social responsibility in a sphere (see ab ove, Figure 2) as well as on and intersected by the CSI-CSR axis makes for an interesting theoretical and conceptual move. Putting the pyramid metaphorically in the sphere recognises that the levels of responsibility are intrinsic to the way in which CSR is conceived. However, in suggesting that the pyramid and by implication the levels, can be rotated the inference is that the levels are neither hierarchical or static but ? uid and necessary to the other. In this model the levels move and take on differing degrees of importance according to internal and external environmental factors and the issues impacting on the directional movement of the CSI-CSR continuum.Contextual factors mean that economic, legal, ethical and discretionary levels change position inside the pyramid and that one cannot be fully understood without reference to the other. There is almost structured booby hatch within the model and thus lends itself to ideas emanating from chaos and complexity theories (see for example Marion, 1999 Byrne, 1998 Rowley and Roevens, 2000). The signi? cance of this articles theoretical contribution is that it addresses the discussion and de? nition of CSR. By introducing the concept of CSI it counteracts the tendency to treat the concept of CSR as a one-dimensional single entity and unpacks the terms to reveal multi-faceted layers of complexity that are influence by context. The idea of corporations acting irresponsibly is theoretically validated by the arguments posited here.As an analytical tool the CSI-CSR typology is of use to academics and practitioners as it facilitates the development of pro-active as well as re-active internal and external communication strategies. It is increasingly the case that CSR and CSI are issues about which corporations are required and expected to communicate. To do this effectively tools of analysis are required and herein lies the unique contribution of this article. Concluding remarks This article has explored and analyse d CSR and its antithesis CSI. That businesses act both irresponsibly and responsibly is highlighted in the distinction do by the terms. The terms themselves are often con? ated and a greater distinction ought to be drawn between CSR and CSI.It is wrong to equate irresponsible business practice with CSR. Writing about the issue of social responsibility Milton Friedman (1962133) asserted that it was fundamentally rabble-rousing. More than 40 years on since making those claims it is interesting to speculate as to how Friedman would describe the concept of CSI. The concept may act as an af? rmation of his original statement and could well be described by some as being totally subversive. However, this description only tells part of the story, for the reality is that CSI allows for greater understanding and clarity of the processes and practices by which businesses operate in doing good as well as doing wrong.The CSI-CSR framework acts as a tool of support for management to identify is sues that may do harm to the business, pre-empt or react to them, and thus not only place the business in a better position to survive but to also better meet customer needs. What some may deem to be a subversive concept is in fact a practical tool of analysis for an increasingly free-enterprise(a) business environment. The CSI-CSR framework enables businesses to better meet existing and emerging needs in a dynamic, highly competitive, ever-changing business environment. The proposed bi-polar, dualistic model enables analysis of CSR business practice and allows for change and measurement to be reported on in terms of a sliding scale of doing good as well as doing bad. As well as operating as a theoretical conceptual model the VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 307 j j roposed framework is also a tool of analysis that can be applied and used to enhance and make more bluff systems and practices of CSR. Analysed at a super? cial, linguistic level CSR is a concept th at is hard to disagree with. It has a warm and positive feel to it and is something to which stakeholders are happy to sign up to in one way, shape or form. The sub-textual message inferred by the term CSR is that corporations are socially responsible. The term CSI challenges this CSR sub-text and poses questions around how corporations communicate these issues. That corporations can act irresponsibly is not something easily refuted.CSI and CSR are politically infused language based terms that surround and are about the roles of business, corporations and the politics and discourse of the workplace. The language used is soothing, calming and designed to purify dissenting points of view. It is about building consent. At the same time til now it is important for business to acknowledge when things go wrong in regards to issues of social responsibility, know how to deal with and manage the communication issues surrounding them with a view to mounting a damage limitation exercise. One term cannot be conceived without the other, they are intertwined, belong to and are about each other. It is suggested here that CSI and CSR are part and parcel of the fabric of the ideal of a free, democratic, stakeholding, capitalist economy and society.As such, they are issues that require debate, monitoring and the engagement of individual and corporate active citizenship (see Marshall, 1963). Communication and dialogue are of critical importance for developing understanding and building knowledge of how to be a good individual and corporate citizen. For some the shift from a CSI to a CSR position is a perceptual rather than a substantive change. This critique of the CSR agenda is the voice of cynicism and belies what for others is an actual change in attitude and business practice. This of course is not to say that more could not be done. Such a critique is not without some merit in so far as CSI, even in todays open and sheer organisations, remains or so hidden from view.It should not be forgotten that CSI can impact on and harm companies bottom line and it is primarily for this reason that a confederacy of silence pervades organisations and workplace cultures where irresponsible practices exist. Communication using open and transparent dialogue within organisations can facilitate the breaking of silence around irresponsible corporate practices and might limit future damage and/or create new business opportunities. The majority of companies are keen to press CSR issues and of their own volition go beyond legal minimum requirements. non only do companies want to do well by doing good, but also some want to do good because they believe it to be the right and proper thing to do. Not all businesses are communication what it is they do in regards to CSR to best effect.Regarding their social responsibility practices a CSI-CSR audit can help businesses identify areas of strength and areas for improvement. In itself such an exercise can act as a useful veh icle of and for communication. It is increasingly recognised that adopting a CSR approach can be both an ethical and pro? table way to manage a business. Ethics and pro? t are not mutually exclusive terms but have a symbiotic relationship in the form of CSR. Though nevertheless, at the end of the day and as Friedman (1962) rightly noted, the purpose of business is to make pro? t. In revisiting the work by Carroll (1979, 1991, 1999) and his exposition of CSR this article has sought to build on and further develop the concept, from both an academic and practitioner perspective.In applying the CSI-CSR framework as a legitimate tool of application and analysis it has established the premise that business does not always act in a responsible manner and does at times, given a particular set of circumstances, act irresponsibly. The import of the CSI-CSR model is in establishing this idea and recognising that from a theoretical and communication practice based world sales booth action can be taken to address and minimise opportunities for irresponsible corporate actions and to maximise opportunities for responsible social behavior. The broad de? nition of good, ethically driven corporate governance strives towards CSR and away from CSI. Behaving in a CSR way makes respectable business sense, as Enron, Worldcom and others bear testimony.The challenge for the future (http//www. foresight. gov. uk/) is to move mindsets away from CSI and to CSR proper. PAGE 308 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j References Arpan, L. M. (2005), Integration of information about corporate social performance, Corporate Communications An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 83-98. Birch, D. (2008), analytic thinking of CSR principles and concepts, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 4 Nos 1-2, pp. 129-35. Bowd, R. , Bowd, L. and Harris, P. (2006), Communicating corporate social responsibility an exploratory case study of a major UK retail centre, Journal of Public Affa irs,, May, pp. 147-55. Bowd, R. , Jones, B. nd Tench, R. (2005), CSR and the Media, Summary Research Report, Leeds Metropolitan University and Connectpoint, Leeds. Byrne, D. (1998), complexness Theory and the Social Sciences An Introduction, Routledge, London. Carroll, A. (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505. Carroll, A. (1991), The pyramid of corporate social responsibility toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders, Business Horizons, July-August. Carroll, A. (1999), Corporate social responsibility evolution of a de? nitional construct, Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 68-95. Commission of the European Communities (2001), Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Commission of the European Communities (2002), Communication from the Commission Concerning Corporate Social Responsibility A Busines s Contribution to sustainable Development, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (1992), Cadbury Report, Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance, London. Cornelissen, J. (2004), Corporate Communications, Theory and Practice, Sage, London. Demetrious, K. 2008), Corporate social responsibility, new activism and public relations, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 104-19. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E. (1995), Stakeholder theory of the corporation concepts, evidence and implications, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91. Evuleocha, S. U. (2005), Managing indigenous relations corporate social responsibility in a new age of activism, Corporate Communications An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 328-40. Freeman, R. E. (1984), Strategic Management A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, capital of Massachusetts, MA. Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Hutton, W. 1995), The call down Were in, Vintage, Colchester. Hutton, W. (1999) in Goldblatt, D. (Ed. ), The Stakeholding Society Writings on Politics and Economics, decree Press, Cambridge. Hutton, W. , Field, F. , Kay, J. , Marquand, D. and Gray, J. (1996), Tony and the Tories this is what we mean, Observer, 7 July 1996, pp. 88-92. Ignatieff, M. (1990), The Needs of Strangers, The Hogarth Press, London. Letza, S. , Sun, X. and Kirkbride, J. (2004), Shareholding versus stakeholding a critical review of corporate governance, Corporate Governance, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 242-62. Locke, J. (1958) in von Leyden, W. (Ed. ), Essays on the faithfulness of Nature, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Locke, J. 1959), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 2 vols, Dover, New York, NY. Locke, J. (1960) in Laslett, P. (Ed. ), Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Locke, J. (1979) in Sherman, C. L. (Ed. ), Treatise on Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, Irvington, New York, NY. Marion, R. (1999), The go on of Organisation Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social Systems, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 309 j j Marwick, A. (1989), The Nature of History, 3rd ed. , Macmillan Press Ltd, Basingstoke. Marshall, T. H. (1963), Sociology at the Crossroads, Heinemann Educational Books, London. Mirvis, P. nd Googins, B. (2006), Stages of Corporate Citizenship A Developmental Framework, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, chromatic Hill, MA. Nielsen, A. E. and Thomsen, C. (2007), Reporting CSR what and how to say it? , Corporate Communications An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 25-40. Riese, J. (2007), Thou shalt not be good enough (mis)understanding CSR, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 15-20. Rochlin, S. A. and Googins, B. K. (2005), The Value Proposition for Corporate Citizenship, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Rowley, R. M. and Roevens, J. J. 2000), Organise with Chaos Putting new(a) Chaos Theory to Work in Your Organisation, Management Books, Chalford. Sampson, A. (1983), The Sovereign suppose Secret History of International Telephone and Telegraph, Coronet Books, Philadelphia, PA. Schleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. (1997), A survey of corporate governance, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, pp. 727-83. Steiner, H. (1994), An Essay on Rights, Blackwell, Oxford. Tullberg, J. (2005), What should companies be responsible for? , Business Ethics A European View, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-3. Turner, B. S. (1986), Citizenship and Capitalism The turn over over Reformism, Allen and Unwin, London. Wood, D. 1991), Corporate social performance revisited, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 758-69. Whetten, D. , Rands, G. and Godfrey, P. (2002), What are the responsibilities of business to society, in Pettigrew, A. , Howard, T. and Whittington , R. (Eds), Handbook of strategy and Management, Sage, pp. 373-408. Further reading Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College and The US Chamber of Commerce Center for Corporate Citizenship (2005), The State of Corporate Citizenship in the US Business Perspectives in 2005, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. European Commission (2004), European Multistakeholder Forum on CSR, last-place Report, 29 June.European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs, Industrial relations and industrial change, European Commission Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs (2004), ABC of the Main Instruments of Corporate Social Responsibility, European Commission. Little, A. D. (2003), The Business Case for Corporate Responsibility, Beacon Press, Uck? eld. identical author Brian Jones can be contacted at b. t. emailprotected ac. uk To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail emailprotected com Or visit our web site for further ex patiate www. emeraldinsight. com/reprints PAGE 310 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 3 2009 j j

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.