Theories Of Corporate Social Responsibility Management Essay

Theories Of in corporald kindly province Management Essay ingressThe field of embodied well-disposed responsibility (CSR) shows to tolerate ferment more(prenominal) important around the world.The role of agate line and the way it is perceived by partnership has gone by dint of several changes by means ofout the history. Over eon, until at once, an increase aw arness of the imp defend of moving in and its interaction with br some new(prenominal)ly and milieual issues meet emerged.Companies atomic number 18 today obliged to some certain responsibilities in the society where they be active. The most grassroots responsibilities atomic number 18 laws and rules that they have to supply under.Organizations today ar forced to show that their vocation stands for something more than just profits, and that their activities wreak some value, or at least do non dis wholeowly affect the community around them (Ledwidge, 2007).What is incarnate Social Responsibility (CSR)C SR is a concept that has m some(prenominal) divergent definitions and a concept that is growing in the unified world today. Look in most journal articles and you stub find the list. But do the people really understand what but specifys by in incorporated complaisant responsibility?van Marrewijk, (2003) be CSR is regarded as the panacea which testament solve the global poverty gap, fond exclusion and environmental degradation.Refer to a work by Abeysuriya et al, (2007), corporate loving responsibility of CAR common single-valued function for facilitating the move towards a favorablely and ecologically sustainable future through voluntary note activities.Boyd et al, (2007) be corporate kind responsibility as general hotshot reflects bargains to society and stakeholders inwardly societies impacted by the firm.Beckman et al, (2009) pointed out that CSR known as the organizations status and activities with evaluate to its perceived community responsibility. CSR is dev eloping in the ethics, marketing, and solicitude fields. The ethics consists of three types of issues i.e., macro-, meso- and micro- take purpose based. The macro- and meso- note to stakeholder espousal and micro- is center of special(prenominal) much(prenominal) as code of ethics.van Marrewijk, (2003) specify CSR is regarded as the panacea which will solve the global poverty gap, complaisant exclusion and environmental degradation. honourable challengesRobinson et al, (2006) note that one challenge entrepreneurs face is nearly(predicate) how to define the respectable dilemma explicitly, so as to address it within the context of the entrepreneurial purpose. The honourable issues in cable has to do with devising the right selec decennaryces and in that respect is often no apparent single right way and whitethorn meet optimist expectations.Entrepreneurs are therefore frequently faced with choices in business that make waters accents surrounded by their assume to be ethical and their desire to optimize profits. This tension may sometimes manifest as a fundamental choice between private gain and unrestricted skinny, though this is perhaps to simple a way to sentiment the matter Robinson et al, (2006).The author say that any decision where lesson considerations are relevant may give splay to an ethical dilemma. In general, an ethical dilemma may result from a decision thatrequires a choice between ruleshas no rule, precedent or example to follow cleanly requires ii or more courses of action,which are practically incompatibleshould be taken (in self-interest), but which appears to violate a lesson doctrineThe process of Corporate Social Responsibility portend 1 Phases and stairs within the CSR process (Extracted from ORiordan and Fairbrass, 2008)ORiordan and Fairbrass, (2008) demonstrated the potential moves (CSR processes, phases, and looks diagram) in figure 1. consort to the authors, there are two decided stages locoweed be i dentified i.e. scheme development and strategy capital punishment of CSR.The strategy development phase includes the following factorsValues which drive the strategyAlternatives which encompass the various range of options available to decision makers (e.g. using an proportion from chess, the pieces on the board that are available to be moved)The strategy (or action) which is the prove results from the decisions taken in the two earlier steps of phase 1.The murder phase marks stage two of the CSR process. It includes the factors carrying into action and control which entail the technical aspects of writ of execution at a more tactical aim and the crucial step of control of the entire process (i.e. the feedback loop)Finally, the output step is included based on the rationale that a results-orientated advent is practiced to ensure an effective and efficient use of managerial resources.Theoretical mental homeRefer to Clark, (2000) CSR consists of four steps process i.e., aw areness or learning of an issue, analysis and prep, resolution intern of policy development and death penalty. The process of CSR besides includes environmental assessment, stakeholder management, and issues management.Becker-Olsen et al, (2006) mentioned that CSR a link between loving initiatives and improved fiscal surgical operation. harmonise Besley and Ghatak, (2007) CSR is dependable with profit-maximization in competitive markets. In equilibrium firms convey ethical brands and neutral brands, and consumers self-select according to their valuation of the overt good.According to Margolis et al, (2008) the kind between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate pecuniary writ of execution across eight categories of CSR and found that different initiatives have significantly different impacts on financial performance.Pies et al, (2009) documented that the ordonomic approach can be apply in business ethics to foster effective leadership skills and come on C SR. The ordonomic perspective is a worth(predicate) framework for discussing the meaning and role of ethics in effective leadership and CSR in the age of globalization. The authors explained that the ordonomic approach provides a three-tiered conceptual framework for analyzing society and social interaction (refer to figure 2). paradigm 2 the three-tiered conceptual framework of the ordonomic perspective (extacted from Pies et al, 2009)This framework distinguishes between the basic endorses of antagonistic social cooperation, the meta-games of social rule stigmatizeting, and the meta-meta games of rule-finding discourse.The authors stated that the basic game of social interaction refers as cooperation is all made attainable by the existence of institutions, i.e., rules. for mutual advantage. The meta game is rule-setting processes that are geared toward creating a reciprocally advantageous social structure. Finally, the meta-meta game serves as a rule-finding discourse. Its dis cursive practices aim at critically discussing semantics and with the goal of developing shared perceptions as to the social interdependence of the players (Pies et al, 2009).Levels of Corporate Social ResponsibilityCarroll (1991) stated that CSR consists of four take aim basic responsibilities to society i.e., frugal, legal, ethical and discretionary. From these four level responsibilities, Carroll uses to build his CSR flummox (refer to figure 3).Philantropic ResponsibilitiesEthicalResponsibilitiesLegal ResponsibilitiesEconomic ResponsibilitiesBe a good corporate citizen. Contribute resources to the community improve quality of lifeBe ethical. Obligation to do what is right, just and fair. Avoid harmBe profitable. The cosmos upon which all otherwises restObey the law. Law is societys codification of right and wrong. blowout by rules of the gameFigure 3 The pyramid of corporate social responsibility (Extracted from Caroll 1991)Refer to the Carrolls model, economic responsibil ity is the foundation of the pyramid. The next level involves legal responsibilities, which is followed by ethical responsibilities. At the expire of the pyramid is eleemosynary responsibilities which is to be the mellowedest level of corporate responsibility.Economic and Legal ResponsibilitiesEconomic responsibilities mean that the core activity of a business is to provide goods and services. The legal responsibilities refer to companies cannot exactly focus on the profit motive simultaneously they are expected to act in accordance with current laws and regulations transmitted by federal, state and local communities as the ground rules under which business should keep in line (Carroll, 1991).Table 1 Economic and Legal components of Corporate Social Responsibility (extracted from Carroll, 1991)Economic Components (Responsibilities)Legal Components (Responsibilities)1. Perform in a manner conformable with maximizing earnings per share.1. Perform in a manner evidenceed with exp ectations of government and law.2. Be committed to being as profitable as possible.2. Comply with various federal, state and local regulations.3. Maintain a high level of operating efficiency.3. Be a law-enduring corporate citizen.4. Maintain a strong competitive position.4. It is important that a successful firm is defined as one that fulfils its obligations.5. It is important that a successful firm is defined as one that is consistently profitable.5. Provide goods and services that at least meet minimal legal requirements.Ethical ResponsibilitiesRefer to Caroll, (1991) ethical responsibilities appoint standards, norms and expectations that consumers, employees, shareholders and the community look upon as fair, even though they are not transferable into laws. The ethical responsibility is the voluntarily responsibility by the companion to act in a manner that is fair and justice and to repeal or at least minimize the risk that the shareholders of the participation is bear upo n in any negative manner. In the latest years the ethical responsibility has created high expectations on corporate managers and social pressure forces the companies to act in a manner that is far beyond their legal responsibilities. philanthropic Responsibilities eleemosynary responsibility is ever voluntarily and could be implemented through both devote the employees time and the follows money for the best of the society and always try to strive for improving the world around them. The societal approach indicates that companies are responsible to the society as a whole, of which they can be seen as an integral part (Carroll, 1991).Table 2 Ethical and Philanthropic components of Corporate Social Responsibility (extracted from Carroll, 1991)Ethical Components (Responsibilities)Philanthropic Components (Responsibilities)1. Perform in a manner consistent with expectations of societal mores and ethical norms.1. Perform in a manner consistent with the philanthropic and charitable expe ctations of society.2. Recognize and respect new or evolving ethical moral norms adopted by society.2. advocate the fine and performing arts.3. Prevent ethical norms from being compromised in order to contact corporate goals.3. That managers and employees participate in voluntary and charitable activities within their local communities.4. It is important that good corporate citizenship be defined as doing what is expected morally or ethically.4. Provide assistance to private and creation preparational institutions.5. Recognize that corporate integrity and ethical behaviour go beyond mere compliance with laws and regulations.5. Assist voluntarily those projects that enhance a communitys quality of life.Different approached had been used by van Marrewijk, (2003) i.e, three theories about different levels of CSR (refer to figure 4).Figure 4 General model of CS/CR and its belongingss. (van Extracted from Marrewijk, 2003)According to van Marrewijk, (2003) there the ultimate objectiv e of CSR is to produce Social Sustainpower. This cannot be achieved without the different levels of CSR, in economy, social and environmental issues. In the shareholder approach it is clear that the central aim for a company is the pursuit of profit maximization and that the social responsible activities are not concerned with the corporate body but are a major(ip) task for the government and the public sector. In this process CSR is only evoke in the way that it conveys to achieve he objectives of the company, which in the farsighted proceed is profitability for the owners.Theories of Corporate Social ResponsibilityThe writ of execution theories cor act to the arse to create a model that describes a CSR implementation processAccording to Carol, (1991) business and politics communities have been influenced by the globalisation process and the fracture of values from material to immaterial values that has taken place.Refer to a work by Garriga and Mel, (2004) CSR theories as sociated with four groups i.e., (table 3)Instrumental theoriesThe corporation is used strategicalal tool for wealth creation. There are three main groups of slavish theories which depend on the economic objectives. The three groups areMaximizing the shareholder valueAccording to the authors, any investment social demands that contribute to maximizing the shareholder without deception and fraud are include in this group. It has been noted that the shareholder value maximization as the supreme reference for corporate decision-making.Strategies for achieving competitive advantagesGarriga and Mel, (2004) noted that this group of theories are concentrated on long term social objectives by knowing how to allocate resource and create a competitive advantage. There are three approaches can be included within this strategies i.e., social investments in competitive context, natural resource-based insure of the firm and its dynamic capabilities and strategies for the bottom of the economic pyramid.Cause- colligate to marketingCause- link up marketing refers as the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities and the goal is to enhance company revenues, sales or customer kin by building the brand through the encyclopedism of, and association with the ethical dimension or social responsibility dimension (Garriga and Mel, 2004).Political theoriesThe authors pointed out that political theories focus on interactions and connections between business and society and on the power of business and its inherent responsibility. There are two major theories can be distinguished through Corporate Constitutionalism and Corporate CitizenshipCorporate ConstitutionalismThe authors mentioned that the firm has power to influence the equilibrium of the market. Social powers of the firm are internally and externally without destroy power. They channel organizational power in a supportive way and protect against overweening organizational power.Corporate CitizenshipCor porate citizenship refers as responsibilities and possible partnerships of business in society. It has been report that some theories on corporate citizenship are based on a social contract possibleness. Corporate citizenship theories generally have a strong sense of business responsibility towards the local community, partnerships which are the specific ways of formalizing the willingness to improve the local community and for consideration for the environment. (Garriga and Mel, 2004). collective theoriesAccording to the authors, the integrative theories depend to social demands for its existence continuity and growth. Social demands path society interacts with business and gives it a certain legitimacy and prestige. In addition, the authors noted that the theories of this group are focused on the detection and scanning of, and response to, the social demands that achieve social legitimacy, great social acceptance and prestige.Issues managementThe concept of social responsivenes s broadens with the concept of issue management which refers as a process for making a corporate response to social issues. Issues management is a process of the corporation can identify, evaluate and respond to those social and political issues which may impact significantly upon it.The principle of public responsibilityPublic policy consists of law, regulation and broad pattern of social direction reflected to public opinion, emerging issues, formal legal requirements and enforcement or implementation practices. Garriga and Mel, (2004) noted that if business adhered to the standards of performance in law and the existing public policy process, then it would be judged acceptably responsive in footing of social expectations.Stakeholder managementStakeholder management focuses on the public responsibility principle and combines groups with a stake in the firm into managerial decision making (Garriga and Mel, 2004).Corporate social performanceRefer to Garriga and Mel, (2004) the corp orate social performance theories includes social legitimacy with process for giving appropriate responses. The corporate social performance besides include the principles of CSR, expressed on institutional, organizational and idiosyncratic levels, processes of corporate social responsiveness, much(prenominal) as environmental assessment, stakeholder management and issues management, and outcomes of corporate behavior including social impacts, social programs and social policies.Ethical theoriesGarriga and Mel, (2004) documented that ethical theories focus on the ethical requirements that strengthen the kind between business and society which is based on principles that express the right thing to do or the necessity to achieve a good society.Normative stakeholder systemThe authors noted that the normative stakeholder possible action is a way to integrate social demands. Normative stakeholder theory has a normative core based on two major ideasstakeholders are persons or group s with legitimate interests in adjective and/or substantive aspects of corporate activity (stakeholders are identified by their interests in the corporation, whether or not the corporation has any corresponding usable interest in them) andThe interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value (that is, for each one group of stakeholders merits consideration for its own sake and not merely because of its ability to further the interests of some other group, such as the shareowners). popular rightsUniversal rights ( homo rights) UN Global Compact includes in the area of human rights, labor rights and the environment protection as a basis for CSR.sustainable developmentSustainable development requires the integration of social, environmental, and economic considerations to make balanced judgments for the long term. In order to maintain the sustainable developmenet there is a need for the organizations aims and intentions be aligned with the organization strategy, as an appropriate response to the circumstances in which the organization operates (Garriga and Mel, 2004).Table 3 Corporate Social Responsibility Theories and related approaches (extracted from Garriga and Male, 2004)The common good approachRefer to the authors, this approach maintains that business, as with any other social group or individual in society, has to contribute to the common good, because it is a part of society and it shouldnt be harmful to society.Morimoto and Hope, (2005) are using Grounded Theory approach to undertake the complex issues CSR auditing. According to the authors the grounded theory is grounded in the data developed from it by the analysis process and tried in the existing data for verification. It is dictatorial rigor and thoroughness from initial design, through data collection and analysis.Chih et al, (2009) institutional theory on CSR comprising a series of propositions specifying the conditions under which corporations are more (or less) likely to behave in soci ally responsible ways such as financial performance and economic environment, competition, legal environment, private regulation and the presence of autarkic organizations, business education environment, and employer-employee relationsAnother study by Frederiksen, (2009), the author had chosen two kinds of teleological moral theories, i.e. egoism and utilitarianism, and two kinds of deontological moral theories, i.e. libertarianism and common-sense morality and moral theory, i.e. utilitarianism and common-sense morality.From the authors finding, the companies act in CSR is not according to their CSR policies on goal-orientated teleological moral theories, such as ethical egoism or utilitarianism, but they prefer on duty based common-sense morality. In addition, managers mainly perform with goal-oriented teleological moral the ethical guidelines, utilitarianism and this theory is in disagreement with deontologically oriented theories i.e., common-sense morality.teleological moral t heoriesEgoismAccording to Frederiksen, (2009), CSR concerned with benefiting the company such as employees, the local community and companys self-interest. Ethical egoist refers to any kind of social arrangement that would be rational for their own best-interest. Therefore, egoism in a company should to do good or refrain from doing harm only if it is good for the company, normally meaning if it military services to maximize profit.UtilitarianismIt has been stated that the relationship between CSR and utilitarians is companies have a moral obligation to promote the best possible outcome, i.e. maximise happiness from an sincere perspective. Impartiality refers as the one is impartial in relation to who the benefactor is and who the beneficiary is such as those who close related to the company, employees (Frederiksen, 2009).Deontological moral theoriesLibertarianismThe author noted that the relation of CSR and libertarianism, it is believe that companies have no moral obligation to positively help anyone they are only morally obligated not to violate anyones negative rights.Common-sense moralityThe relationship between CSR and the common-sense orientation believe that companies have a moral obligation not to violate anyones rights and that they in addition have positive duties towards certain groups, such as employees, the local community and others closely related to the company. The author mentioned that common-sense moral principles seem to be principles concerning special obligations for example special obligations towards shareholders or other closely related groups.Hsieh, (2009) documented that there are two tumid theories of corporate purpose i.e., stakeholder theory and corporate citizenship theory.Stakeholder theoryThe corporation ought to be managed for the benefit of all its stakeholdersCorporate citizenship theoryIt emphasize business enterprises in respecting and defending human rights and in contributing to social welfare and human development within societyRefer to Padgett RC, Galan JI, (2009), resource-based view (RBV) theory related to CSR in the sense of they can generate competitive advantages the firm is also affected by external factors. RBV in the study of CSR is explained by the speech pattern it places on the importance of specific intangible resources, such as know-how, corporate civilisation and reputation for firms to obtain competitive advantages.Table 4 In summary of Corporate Social Responsibility TheoriesTheoriesTypes of theoriesAuthorsCSR theories associated with four groupsInstrumental theories- strategic tool for wealth creationPolitical theories- on interactions and connections between business and society and on the power of business and its inherent responsibilityIntegrative theories- social demands for its existence continuity and growth.Ethical theories- ethical requirements that strengthen the relationship between business and societyGarriga and Mel, (2004)Undertake complex issues regarding CSR auditingGrounded theoryIt is systematic rigor and thoroughness from initial design, through data collection and analysis.Morimoto and Hope, (2005)Institutional theoryCSR comprising a series of propositions specifying the conditions under which corporations are more (or less) likely to behave in socially responsible ways such as financial performance and economic environment, competition, legal environment, private regulation and the presence of independent organizations, business education environment, and employer-employee relationsChih et al, (2009)CSR associated with two kinds of teleological moral theories and two kinds of deontological moral theories.Teleological moral theoriesEgoismAny kind of social arrangement that would be rational for their own best-interest to help maximize company profits.UtilitarianismTo promote the best possible outcome, i.e. maximise happiness to those who closely related to the company, employees.Deontological moral theoriesLibertarianismThe compani es have no moral obligation to positively help anyone they are only morally obligated not to violate anyones negative rights.Common-sense morality and moral theoryPrinciples concerning special obligations not to violate anyones rights and that they also have positive duties towards certain groups for example special obligations towards shareholders or other closely related groups.Frederiksen, (2009)There are two prominent theories of corporate purposeStakeholder theorythe corporation ought to be managed for the benefit of all its stakeholdersCorporate citizenship theoryIt emphasize business enterprises in respecting and defending human rights and in contributing to social welfare and human development within society.Hsieh, (2009)Resource-based view (RBV) RBV theory allows to analyse the effect ofRD intensity on CSRResource-based view (RBV) theoryImportance of specific intangible resources, such as know-how, corporate culture and reputation for firms to obtain competitive advantages. Padgett and Galan, (2009)Corporate Social Responsibility ImplementationMarimoto et al, (2005) there are six fundamental elements to the achievement of successful CSR are perceived as good stakeholder management, good corporate leadership greater priority for CSR at board level, integration of CSR into corporate policy at all levels and in all divisions of business, regulation at the national and transnational level understood and demonstrated across all areas of business, active sake of, and good coordination between, government business, NGOs and civil society.Raps (2005) noted that in order to achieve successful implementation of CSR, there is a need to understand a long-term process that requires creativity and careful planning. The author pointed out ten critical points to overcome and improve the difficulties in the CSR implementation context.Commitment of top managementRefer to Raps, (2005), the importance of having top-managers working hard to achieve the purpose of the st rategy is crucial for the implementation to succeed. Top-managers must influence midsection managers in order to get their true message forward they cannot relay on and believe that the middle-managers perception of the implementation is the same as theirs.Involve middle managers valuable fellowshipThe author pointed out that to make use of the knowledge that middle managers possess and make sure they are involved increases their motive and make them feel like they are a part of the process. This motive boost is important for everyones everyday day work since the middle managers engagement increases the awareness of the implementation end-to-end the organization.Communication is what implementation is all aboutRefer to Raps, (2005) illustrates in his communication-model how it is possible to provide appropriate information regarding implementation throughout the organization (Figure 5).Figure 5 Issues to be addresses in the communication theory plan (Extracted with Raps 2005). Integrate point of viewIt is essential to see the implementation as a method used integrated within all aspects of the company. Traditionally implementation often overemphasizes the structural aspects e.g. organizational structure and disregards other existing components such as cultural aspects and human resources perspective. All of these aspects need to be taken into consideration to create an integrated measure for implementing activities (Raps, 2005). weak assignment of responsibilitiesTo avoid power struggles between departments and within hierarchies, there should be a plan with clear assignments of responsibilities regarding detailed implementation activities. This is a incumbrance way of proceeding. Responsibilities are clear and potential problems are therefore avoided (Raps, 2005) incumbrance measures against barriersChange is a common phenomenon for companies today and the companies that are capable of treatment change has a great advantage. The ability to manage change has become a core competency. A great challenge within strategy implementation is to deal with potential change barriers. Therefore, it is important to prevent these barriers and by changing the way they view and practice strategy implementation, senior executives can effectively transform change barriers into gateways for a successful execution (Raps, 2005). emphasize teamwork activitiesTeamwork is an important part when implementing a strategy. It is however often forgotten when it comes stilt to implementation process activities (Raps, 2005).Respect the individuals different characteristicsHuman resources are valuable and intangible assets within a company. Latest studies indicate that HR is the key factor for successful implementation (Raps, 2005)Take advantage of supportive implementation instrumentsAccording to the author, there are two implementation instruments can be applied i.e., the balanced poster and the supportive software solution. The balanced scorecard provides a functionality to translate a companys strategic objectives into a coherent set of performance measures. In addition, it provides a framework to integrate the strategic planning and meets the requirements that the strategic planning system itself can display. The software solutions can be helpful to improve the quality of strategy implementation and provides clear assignments of responsibilities throughout the organizations implementation process.Calculate buffer time for unexpected incidentsThe author reported that the most important in strategy implementation is the exceeding of time restrictions. The important key is to find out the time-intense activities and harmonize with the time capac