Share corporate social responsibility best practice and forgo competitive advantage

Cross-sector partnerships are capable of achieving solutions to large scale societal problems, which when successful, are well-publicized. Partnering organizations not only reap reputational acclaim but garner valuable organizational benefits. Membership within successful partnerships would undoubtedly be considered a competitive advantage, yet several of these successful relationships have chosen to forgo this valuable position. Instead of retaining intellectual property, partnering organizations are sharing successful processes and practices with peers and competitors. This research examined three examples of best practice cross-sector partnerships to identify relationship success factors, how they involved other organizations and why they shared successful social responsibility initiatives with others.

The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment and the moderating role of collectivism and masculinity: evidence from China

This study examines the relationship between employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility practices and their organizational commitment. Hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to analyze survey data on 280 employees from five export-oriented manufacturing firms in China. Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility practices towards internal stakeholders were found to relate positively to their organizational commitment. In contrast, employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility practices to external stakeholders had a nonsignificant or marginally significant impact on organizational commitment. In addition, the collectivism and masculinity orientations of employees were found to moderate this relationship. These findings provide an insight into how corporate social responsibility practices may be utilized to motivate diverse groups of employees within China-based organizations. © 2013 Taylor & Francis.

Global branding and strategic CSR : an overview of three types of complexity

Purpose – There is general agreement that global brands should ensure that they incorporate social responsibility. To do this properly, organisations must understand what it means to be socially responsible and how they can leverage their actions. The paper proposes consideration of three distinct areas: the range of social responsibility issues, what the organisations actually do and how to leverage those corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions. This paper seeks to conceptually develop these three areas of complexity – Issue, Organisational and Communication – as it is only after organisations understand these three areas that they can effectively leverage socially responsible activities in their brands.

Design/methodology/approach – This research undertakes a review and synthesis of the academic, practitioner and industry literature examining CSR and the brand, addressing the three areas of complexity – issue, organisational and communication.

Findings – The research finds that within these three areas of complexity there are a number of sub-issues that must be addressed if CSR is to be strategically integrated into a global brand. This includes sub-issues associated with social issue complexity (identification, heterogeneity, measurement, and interpretation); organizational complexity (overall corporate brand, multiple products and brands, functional activities, and supply chain); and communication complexity (intensity of action/positioning, communicating action, types of programs utilised, and integration issues.) It thus provides an agenda for future research.

Research limitations/implications – There is limited academic literature examining how global organisations incorporate CSR activities into their brand and the research proposes the issues that need to be considered when integrating CSR into branding strategy. Future research needs to be undertaken to explore the internal processes that global firms use to develop their CSR positioning strategies and some research propositions for future research are proposed. Additionally further exploration of each of the issues (and sub-issues) identified in this paper is warranted, and some suggestions are made for this.

Practical implications – The results of this study show that developing a CSR leveraged brand in a consistent way that is salient to all stakeholders is no simple task for global organisations. By considering the three areas of complexity developed here organisations will be able to better understand and align their activities in line with CSR related issues. Being global means that organisations will likely need to ensure they address the highest set of global expectations, as any lower level may be criticised as being less than appropriate.

Originality/value – The paper develops the sub-issues of issue, organisational and communication complexity associated with global brands' CSR activities. This strategic perspective goes beyond focusing on the tactical activities undertaken or the philosophical issue of whether CSR should be undertaken. The work therefore allows global organisations to look at CSR more strategically as a branding issue.