Ethical corporate social responsibility: A framework for managers

Managers encounter difficulties in developing corporate social responsibility programmes. These difficulties arise from conflicting interests and priorities. Pressures may be both internal and external and corporate social responsibility programmes usually evolve from a combination of proactive and reactive policies. The first experiences of a company are likely to be reactive, in response to requests for equipment, sponsorship or charitable donations but companies soon become aware of the benefits of planned programmes. Planning implies objectives, performance criteria and evaluation, and a rational framework for decision-taking. This paper attempts to highlight problem areas for managers and to develop a pragmatic framework of analysis which will help identify and clarify corporate social responsibilities. The paper, which is written from a UK perspective discusses the contribution of stakeholder models and highlights limitations of this approach. It develops an ethical framework focused on concepts of responsibility.Jacquie L'Etang is a Lecturer in Public Relations at the University of Stirling, Scotland and teaches on the full-time and distance learning MSc degrees in Public Relations. She has postgraduate degrees in history, public relations and social justice and her main research interests are in business ethics and the theory, history and sociology of public relations.     

Corporate social responsibility: Another view

Numerous individuals, discussing the topic of corporate social responsibility, have exhorted the business community to demonstrate increased concern for social welfare. However, some observers [1,8,12] believe that executives have become less interested in social responsibilities and more disillusioned by the results of the social-responsibility era.The apparent change in executives' attitudes leads to several questions that need answering: Has corporate experimentation with social programs convinced managers that the pursuit of social responsibility is basically inimical to the quest for profits? Is the business community's commitment to the philosophy of corporate social responsibility moribund? Is the idea destined to die of benign neglect? Conclusions pertaining to these questions are developed in this article. The analysis includes the formulation of a theoretical basis for evaluating and resolving the central issues which confound executive decision making as it relates to corporate social responsibility.     

Professionals and social responsibility: Some patterns

Modern professionals are engaged in making things better, but the specific advances on the micro-level are increasingly undercut by problems on the macro-level. The content of this better is typically guided by values such as efficiency, productivity or cost-effectiveness, which are essentially output over input ratios unable to account for how a specific improvement will fit into the broader human, social and ecological contexts. Hence, micro-level advances lead to fragmentation and a loss of harmony, compatibility and conviviality. The situation is further complicated by the fact that, culturally speaking, science and technology have become good in themselves, making reasonable discourse difficult. This paper concludes with an analogy from an earlier epoch suggesting how the situation may be resolved. After completing a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering, Willem Vanderburg continued his studies of technology via the social sciences and humanities. He is currently the Director of the Centre for Technology and Social Development in the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering at the University of Toronto. His publications include Technique and Culture, Vol. I, The Growth of Minds and Cultures (1985) and Perspectives on our Age (1981).     

Corporate social responsibility: The debate revisited

Before gaining general acceptance, an idea that jolts individuals out of accustomed-behavioral patterns undergoes a slow evolution. What is interesting in the history of the corporate-social-responsibility doctrine is that, within roughly three decades, it has achieved a status almost coequal with the bottom-line philosophy which, in the past, provided legitimacy to corporate decision making.Nevertheless, debate over corporate responsibilities continues. Two factors explain why: 1) corporate performance is perceived by some as not matching corporate rhetoric and 2) the “battle of definitions” continues.The first factor will be determined within the next five years because the Reagan Administration, by curtailing government activities, places more responsibility on the private sector. The definitional issue of CSR and CSR² (responsibility versus response) is not likely to be resolved soon but the strengths of the “response model” do not equal the strengths of the “responsibility model.” Responsibility is a moral term and response a psychological one: the American people ask their leaders to behave as “virtuous agents.”Moral decision rendered in complex situations—and on behalf of countless others—will lead people to define “correctness” differently, as the “Poletown incident” in Detroit amply illustrates. The search, however, for a new credo and a new character for America business has begun—and will continue.     

The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: A scale development

Marketers must first perceive ethics and social responsibility to be important before their behaviors are likely to become more ethical and reflect greater social responsibility. However, little research has been conducted concerning marketers' perceptions regarding the importance of ethics and social responsibility as components of business decisions. The purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid scale for measuring marketers' perceptions regarding the importance of ethics and social responsibility. The authors develop an instrument for the measurement of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility (PRESOR). Evidence that the scale is valid is presented through the assessment of scale reliability, as well as content and predictive validity. Finally, future research needs and the value of this construct to marketing are discussed. Anusorn Singhapakdi is Associate Professor of Marketing at Old Dominion University. He received his Ph.D. in Marketing. His has published in the Journal of Macromarketing, the Journal of Business Ethics, the Business and Professional Ethics Journal, the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management and the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. He has presented papers at various professional conferences including the American Marketing Association and the Academy of Marketing Science. Scott J. Vitell is Associate Professor of Marketing and holder of the Phil B. Hardin Chair of Marketing at the University of Mississippi. He received his Ph.D. in Marketing. His work has previously appeared in the Journal of Macromarketing, the Journal of Business Ethics, Research in Marketing, the Business and Professional Ethics Journal and the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science as well as various other journals and proceedings. Kumar C. Rallapalli is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Troy State University. His research has been published in the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science and the Journal of Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management as well as various national and regional proceedings. His research interests include marketing ethics, health care marketing, international marketing and direct marketing. Kenneth L. Kraft is Director of Graduate Studies at the University of Tampa. He received his DBA in Management. He has published numerous articles on Business Ethics, Organization Design and Strategic Planning in Journals such as the Academy of Management Review, America Business Review and the Journal of Business Ethics. His current research interest centers on the measurement of moral intensity.     

In defense of social responsibility

Recent journalistic criticism of the concept of corporate social responsibility rests on the assertion that social responsibility adds nothing to corporate profits. Hence, inclusion of the motion in the business vocabulary amounts to nothing more than “double talk.”The author of an influential 1953 book on the topic took another look at social responsibility twenty-five years later and found “few gains in the quality of business stewardship over that time.” The idea “remains peripheral to the mainstream of economic thought.”Corporate social responsibility involves more than simply being a law-abiding corporate citizen. It reaches into these decision-making areas where perfectly legal choices may have harmful social consequences. As evidence of social harm amounts, society has to define and defend the ground on which it requires an appropriate response from the business corporation. Society will get the response it demands.     

In defense of social responsibility

The purpose of the present article is to argue against the minimalist theory of social responsibility (i.e., that the sole responsibility of business is to maximize profit in conformity with law), particularly as it is advanced by Butler D. Shaffer. Against this view, I argue that such a theory does not necessarily support or achieve greater levels of corporate efficiency than does a more demanding theory of social responsibility, and that the argument for the former view is no more valueneutral than for the latter. Finally, I argue that Shaffer fails to show that the more maximal theory demands too much from executives and is too unclear to be applicable to their decision-making.     

Business ethics and social responsibility in finance instruction: An abdication of responsibility

The shareholder wealth maximization objective for corporate management can be a very effective tool for decision making. However, it can also be used to rationalize the commission of unethical or socially irresponsible actions. Overemphasis on the SWM objective by some companies can lead to dangerous or disastrous consequences for consumers, employees, or the general population. Even so, issues of business ethics and social responsibility (BE-SR) are almost totally ignored in corporate finance textbooks. If the typical coverage of corporate finance courses is represented by these textbooks, then financial educators are abdicating their responsibility to help prepare future corporate managers to recognize and deal with BE-SR issues effectively.Delvin D. Hawley earned his Ph.D and MBA in Finance and B.S. in Psychology at Michigan State University. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Finance at The University of Mississippi in Oxford. Teaching areas include Corporate Finance and Investments. Research interests include bond market efficiency and artificial neural network applications in finance.     

The international infant formula controversy: A dilemma in corporate social responsibility

One of the most controversial issues to face any industry has been the infant formula problem, especially in the less-developed countries (LDCs). Producers of infant formula were confronted with a boycott which evolved from a grass-roots level to one which involved many nations, international and national public agencies, non-profit organizations, scientific research institutions, large church denominations, and every company in the industry. An international boycott was aimed at Nestlé, one of the largest producers of infant formula.The aim of this paper is (1) to examine both sides of the controversy, and (2) to analyze the results of the boycott, specifically the introduction of product codes and changes in industry and company strategies. In both areas ethical implications were involved. James C. Baker is Professor of Finance and International Business at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio. Previously he was Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland and Associate Professor at San Francisco State University. His most important publications are Multinational Marketing: Dimensions in Strategy(1975) (with J. K. Ryans); International Bank Regulation(1978). He published more than 70 articles in e.g. Columbia Journal of World Business, Journal of World Trade Law, Journal of International Marketing, Foreign Trade Review, Management Decision, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting.     

Measuring the relative importances of social responsibility components: A decision modeling approach

In this study, a decision modeling approach is used to measure the relative importances of four social responsibility components. When given information concerning the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic activities of 16 hypothetical organizations, 159 junior and senior management students judged the social responsibility of these firms. The study used two types of analysis: first, a within-subject regression, then a between-subject ANOVA. Results showed ethical behavior to be most important in judging social responsibility; legal behavior was second, discretionary behavior third, and economic behavior was least important. In addition, all but one rater consistently applied the social responsibility components. The implications of these results and suggestions for future research are discussed. Barbara A. Spencer is Assistant Professor of Management at Clemson University. Her current research interests include strategic management, social issues, and business ethics. She has published several articles on corporate social responsibility. John K. Butler is Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Clemson University. He has published articles on job satisfaction, trust, group processes, political representation, and research methods in academic journals and proceedings.     

Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good

Saving the rain forest from yet another palm oil plantation would certainly garner a company favorable attention from environmentalists, but how would its shareholders react? In this article, we show that by strategically practicing corporate social responsibility (CSR), a company can ‘do well by doing good’; in other words, it can make a profit and make the world a better place at the same time. CSR is regarded as voluntary corporate commitment to exceed the explicit and implicit obligations imposed on a company by society's expectations of conventional corporate behavior. Hence, CSR is a way of promoting social trends in order to enhance society's basic order, which we define as consisting of obligations that cover both the legal framework and social conventions. Due to globalization, companies are now less constrained by society's basic order than they have been in the past. Because different countries have different laws and standards, there are more ways to get away with less than ideal behavior in the quest for greater and greater profits. Nearly everyone agrees that this is not a good thing, but what can be done? Via this article, we offer an understanding of CSR that could be the answer. Herein, we contend that practicing CSR is not altruistic do-gooding, but rather a way for both companies and society to prosper. This is especially true when CSR is conceived of as a long-range plan of action.     

The valdez principles: Implications for corporate social responsibility

The Valdez Principles have been formulated to guide and evaluate corporate conduct towards the environment. While at first glance the code appears to impose enormous new responsibilities on firms, a closer analysis indicates that existing regulations and business practices already require businesses to meet many of the environmental goals sought by its proponents. Likely corporate response to the code is examined against this background and with reference to the experience with other voluntary codes of conduct. It would appear that compliance with the code will yield minimal benefits and non-compliance will impose minimum costs for the environmentally-responsible firm.Joao S. Neves is Associate Professor of Management at Trenton State College where he teaches various courses in Management. A graduate from the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Neves has numerous publications in academic and trade journals. His interests include corporate social responsibility and he has contributed to many conferences. Rajib N. Sanyal teaches international management and human resource management at Trenton State College in Trenton, New Jersey. He obtained his Ph. D. from Georgia State University-Atlanta. His writings can be found in International Journal of Value-Based Management, Journal of International Business Studies, and Labor Studies Journal, among others.     

Corporate social responsibility in China: implementation and challenges

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is becoming increasingly important in China. This paper investigates the implementation of instruments for dimensions of CSR that are relevant for the Chinese context and the challenges that Chinese companies face. Based on a survey among 109 Chinese companies, we find that formal instruments to implement CSR are rather common. Companies spend most effort in improving the economic aspects of CSR, such as competitiveness, product innovation and process innovation. Only a small minority of the companies set concrete targets and report the realization of these targets for social and environmental goals. This indicates that the attention to social and environmental aspects of CSR is still rather loose. The most important challenges for improving CSR are strong competitive pressure, insufficient support from the government and/or nongovernmental organizations and high costs of CSR implementation. Multiple regression analysis shows that the use of instruments is positively related to company size and foreign ownership and negatively related to lack of resources and support for CSR by investors and consumers.     

Corporate social responsibility: review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives

Based on a survey and content analysis of 462 peer‐reviewed academic articles over the period 1990–2014, this article reviews theories related to the external drivers of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (such as stakeholder theory and resource‐dependence theory) and the internal drivers of CSR (such as resource‐based view [RBV] and agency theory) that have been utilized to explain CSR. The article discusses the main tenets of the principal theoretical perspectives and their application in CSR research. Going beyond previous reviews that have largely failed to investigate theory applications in CSR scholarship, this article stresses the importance of theory‐driven explanations of CSR and the complementarity of different theories. The article demonstrates that the current mainstream theorizing of CSR is dominated by theories related to the external drivers of CSR and is less developed with regard to the internal dynamics. The article outlines several productive avenues for future research: the need for multi‐theory studies and more research at multiple levels of analysis, particularly at the individual level of analysis. It suggests that CSR scholarship can benefit from combining theoretical insights from a range of established theoretical lenses such as institutional theory and RBV, and can gain new insights from theoretical lenses such as Austrian economics and micro‐level psychological theories.     

诺华中国:打造“社会责任金字塔模式”

无论科学再怎样进步,医生都非万能。面对人类历史上不可治愈的疾病,譬如癌症,医生的能力显然是有限的。在癌症患者的生命不会随着科技的发展而延续的年代,诺华所能作的贡献就是为癌症患者减轻痛苦。阳春三月