The relative importance of social responsibility in determining organizational effectiveness: Student responses

This paper investigates the relative importance of social responsibility criteria in determining organizational effectiveness. The organizational effectiveness menu was used as a questionnaire with a sample of 151 senior undergraduates. Each respondent was asked to rate the importance of the criteria from three constituent perspectives within a service organization: (1) as a manager, (2) as an investor, (3) as an employee. Later, a subsample of students (n=61) responded to the same questionnaire acting as a manager in an assigned case study. The results indicated that students acting as managers, investors, or employees rate social responsibility criteria among the least important of the determinants of organizational effectiveness. Moreover, while specific situations may call for changes in the relative importance of these criteria, social responsibility criteria were not viewed, generally, as the most important determinants of organizational effectiveness.Kenneth L. Kraft is currently an Associate Professor of Management at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. His recent papers explore the relationships between strategy, structure, social responsibility, and organizational effectiveness in a variety of settings.     

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.     

The relative importance of social responsibility in determining organizational effectiveness: Student responses II

This paper, Study II, is the second in a series of papers investigating the relative importance of social responsibility criteria in determining organizational effectiveness, using student samples. A revised version of the Organizational Effectiveness Menu was used as a questionnaire with a sample of 182 senior undergraduate and the MBA students from three universities. Each respondent was asked to rate the importance of the criteria from a manager's perspective. The results support the earlier findings that students responding as managers rate social responsibility criteria, individually and collectively, among the least important of the potential determinants of organizational effectiveness.Dr. Kenneth L. Kraft is Director of Graduate studies at The University of Tampa. He has published numerous articles on Business Ethics, Organization Design, and Strategic Planning in journals such as theAcademy of Management Review, American Business Review, andJournal of Business Ethics. His current research interest centers on the measurement of moral intensity.Dr. Anusorn Singhapakdi is Assistant of Marketing at Old Dominion University. His research has been primarily in marketing/business ethics. He has published in theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Macromarketing, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, as well as various other journals and proceedings.     

The role of ethics and social responsibility in achieving organizational effectiveness: Students versus managers

This paper investigates the differences in perceptions between business students and service-sector managers regarding the role that ethics and social responsibility serve in determining organizational effectiveness. An organizational effectiveness instrument containing business ethics and social responsibility items served as a questionnaire for a sample of 151 senior business undergraduates and 53 service-sector managers. The results indicated that while students acting as managers rate some social responsibility issues as more important than do managers, they also rate ethical conduct and a few dimensions of social responsibility lower than do managers. The findings have direct implications for both business practitioners and educators.Kenneth L. Kraft received his D.B.A. from the University of Maryland in 1982 and is currently an Associate Professor of Management at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. His recent papers explore the relationships between strategy, structure, social responsibility, and organizational effectiveness in a variety of settings. Anusorn Singhapakdi is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Old Dominion University. His current research interests center on marketing/business ethics and selected public policy issues in marketing. He has published in Journal of Macromarketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, International Journal of Value Based Managementas well as other journals and proceedings.     

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.     

Corporate social responsibility and public accountability

The development of legislation determining corporate behaviour is a fascinating topic, offering insight into the societal problems of corporate enterprise as they are related to their accounting, their administration, and their external reporting. In this paper the following specific implications for accounting are examined:

-Should accountants get involved in social auditing and are they the ‘core’ persons in corporate social accounting systems?

-Should corporate social performance measurement and reporting become obligatory and to what extent?

-A general framework for the implementation of corporate social accounting systems is suggested and quidelines for its auditing are proposed.

-A tentative set of social auditing standard is outlined together with its methodological accompaniments.

     

Corporate social responsibility and the marketplace

Most work to date seeking to link CSR level and performance has treated CSR as a strictly firm level variable. It is the argument of this author that any investigation of CSR that fails to incorporate industry level realities, particularly of an economic nature, will be fatally deficient. Hypotheses are proposed, building off the work of James Post, the gravamen of which is that CSR level depends significantly on industrial and economic status. The hypotheses are tested against a currently popular database and receive moderate support.Mr. Cottrill is a graduate student at the University of Connecticut generally doing research in strategic management. He is also an attorney, a member of various state and federal bars.     

Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment

Effective corporate social responsibility policies are a requirement for today's companies. Policies have not only to be formulated, they also have to be delivered by corporate employees. This paper uses existing research findings to identify two types of factors that may impact on employee motivation and commitment to CSR 'buy-in'. The first of these is contextual: employee attitudes and behaviours will be affected by organizational culture and climate, by whether CSR policies are couched in terms of compliance or in terms of values, and by whether such policies are integrated into business processes or simply an 'add-on' that serves as window-dressing. The second set of factors is perceptual. Motivation and commitment will be affected by the extent to which they can align personal identity and image with that of the organization, by their perceptions of justice and fairness both in general and in terms of how CSR performance is rewarded, and by their impressions concerning the attitude of top management to CSR issues and performance.     

Corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage: A developing country perspective

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has attracted wider research interests over recent decades. While some studies have examined the impact of CSR activities on firm competitive advantage (CA), the findings so far remain contradictory. Moreover, the role of export orientation, firm strategy, and structure on the association between CSR and CA has not been explicitly examined. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the moderating role of export orientation, firm strategy, structure, and firm size on the association between CSR and CA. Using a sample of 179 responses from management staff in organizations across five sectors in a developing country context of Ghana, the study found positive effects of CSR on CA. The study contributes to the resource‐based view (RBV) scholarship by confirming the important complementary effect of export orientation and organizational structure as important resources and capabilities on the CSR–competitiveness relationship. However, no evidence of a moderating effect of firm strategy, or firm size on the CSR–CA relationship was found. These findings are instructive, impactful, and enrich the existing literature on CSR and strategy. Implications for theory and practice are also discussed.     

The relative importance of social responsibility in determining organizational effectiveness: Managers from two service industries

This paper investigates the relative importance of social responsibility criteria in determining organizational effectiveness as seen by managers of two service industries. The Organizational Effectiveness Menu (Kraft and Jauch, 1988) was used as a questionnaire with a sample of 53 firms. The conclusion is that while managers view ethical conduct as among the most important determinants of organizational effectiveness, numerous other social responsibility criteria are assigned relatively low priority. A question remains as to what managers will actually do when faced with limited resources.Kenneth L. Kraft is currently an Associate Professor of Management at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. His recent papers explore the relationships between strategy, structure, social responsibility, and organizational effectiveness in a variety of settings.     

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,collaboration and depoliticisation

This article offers an engagement of the ethics of Badiou, one of the most significant representatives of contemporary continental philosophy, with the question of corporate social responsibility. First, this article displays an account of the complex ethical thinking of Badiou. Then, it seeks to show how Badiou's thought offers an important and distinctive critique of corporate social responsibility as ideology. Precisely, the two main features of the ideological discourse of corporate social responsibility are collaboration and depoliticisation. The Badiouan critique provides a performative efficacy against the seductions of corporate social responsibility discourse within the framework of a universalist ethics. Therefore, a Badiouan analysis argues that an ethical life is incompatible with corporate social responsibility.     

Corporate social responsibility and the development agenda

The European Commission has designated 2005 as the year of corporate social responsibility in EU countries. Likewise, individual EU member states have taken important steps, such as the UK appointing a Minister for CSR within the Department for Trade and Industry, France legally requiring companies to include social and environmental impact in their annual reports, the Netherlands linking financial support schemes for large companies to compliance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the Danish Government establishing the Copenhagen Centre (a CSR focused research institution). What is this emphasis on CSR all about? The present paper reviews recent trends in CSR theory and practice placing special emphasis on their relevance for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and on the context of economic development in developing countries.     

A new approach to multinational social responsibility

Multinational business activity has expanded dramatically since the end of World War II. The increased presence of foreign corporations and the generally strategic significance of such presence for host countries, has increasingly confronted both sides with the need to develop guidelines governing the conduct of such operations.The new voluntary approach to guideline development suggested here is based on the proposition that the fundamental aim of business activity is the satisfaction of socially desirable needs. Under this approach, MNC's should attempt to operate in a socially desirable manner in all countries of operations. Social desirability determination will be made on the basis of whether activities in particular countries will be seen, by majority concensus of all publics on which corporate activity impacts, to bring about welfare improvements in the countries concerned. Periodic public opinion polls, or more informal methods in the less developed countries, are seen to provide the necessary inputs for the development of overall corporate guidelines for action, which in turn will influence strategic corporate decisions. The long run benefits resulting from such conduct are seen to outweigh temporary gains that could accrue to corporations through the pursuit of profitable but socially undesirable activities.     

Corporate social responsibility: making sense through thinking and acting

This article investigates how companies make sense of CSR. It is based on an explorative comparative case study of 18 companies in the Netherlands using background information, interviews and annual reports. Initially, the sensemaking process of CSR is guided and coordinated by change agents who are specifically appointed to explore the implementation of CSR in their company. These change agents initiate the CSR process within their own organisations. The meaning they develop stems from their personal and organisational values and frames of reference. By attuning the vocabulary of CSR to the language of their colleagues, they aim to gain support for this undertaking in their organisation. This sensemaking procedure can be divided into pragmatic, external, procedural, policy-oriented and value-driven processes. The capability of an organisation to embed CSR is the result of trial and error, personal preferences and the use of language by the change agent that fits the (dynamic) situation at hand. Thus, each organisation needs a tailor-made approach to implement CSR successfully.     

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.     

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.     

Corporate social responsibility as a participative process

Corporate social responsibility is frequently defined primarily in terms of the social and environmental impact of systemic organisational activity. This misses the point. To be applicable, corporate responsibility should be understood as a process , through which individuals ' moral values and concerns are articulated. Moreover, there are important grounds for asserting that such a process should be participative, involving employees (and perhaps other stakeholders). It seems inconsistent not to respect such groups' right to an opinion, while at the same time purporting to be ethical and responsible; also, a better alignment of organisational policy and employees' values holds possibilities for enhanced motivation and work performance. Through such a participative process, matters of social responsibility may be identified in the expectations and moral claims of an organisation's stakeholders. Such claims constitute prima facie obligations to which those responsible for corporate policy should attend, and where such demands conflict then dialogue is required in order to establish an appropriate course of action.