From Quality Management to Socially Responsible Organisations: the Case for CSR

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on the growing interest of the role of business in society, commonly referred to as CSR. Historically CSR can be traced back to the 1950s, although in very recent times there has been a virtual explosion of interest in its use and applicability in organisations. However, there are many unresolved issues, most notably in terms of how CSR should or can be implemented and embedded in an organisation. This paper therefore seeks to explore the relationship and potential synergies between quality management and CSR. Design/methodology/approach – The qualitative exploratory study in this paper represents the first stage of an ongoing research programme, and is based on an in-depth analysis of quality award submission documentation from six case organisations that have recently been recognised as winners in relation to their quest for business improvement. Findings – The paper finds that substantial evidence from each of the case organisations demonstrates the breadth and depth of activities in which they are engaging under the broad headings of workplace, environment, social impact, and economic impact. However, whilst there is no doubting the sincerity of the actions, the approaches and activities, a strategic focus on CSR is still very much in its infancy. Research limitations/implications – In this paper there is a paucity of empirical research examining how existing management tools, techniques and methodologies can be used to further the CSR debate. This paper represents an important first step in redressing this imbalance. Practical implications – The paper suggests that the quality management and business excellence frameworks can offer a strong foundation from which to develop CSR strategies, behaviours and activities in an organisation. Originality/value – This paper represents an important first step in understanding how and where CSR “fits” into an organisation and potentially how existing quality methodologies, tools and frameworks can be used to aid the implementation of CSR.

Beyond Compliance – Below Expectations? Cross-Border CSR, Development and the UN Global Compact.

In this paper, the results of an empirical analysis of a set of 416 descriptive case studies published by corporate members of the UN Global Compact are presented. Although these cases cannot be viewed as representative of the Compact itself or of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and development in general, they can illustrate which kinds of projects are deemed appropriate as best practice examples among Compact members, and therefore indicate the direction, in which predominantly voluntary and business-led CSR might at best be evolving. To help contextualize the analysis, the paper starts with a brief overview of recent academic work on the strengths and limitations of CSR in the light of international development, followed by the empirical analysis of Compact case studies. The results raise doubts regarding the general suitability of contemporary CSR initiatives to tackle some of the most pressing developmental challenges. Instead, only certain topics are commonly addressed, while a number of issues such as anti-corruption measures or labour rights are underrepresented in the case study sample. Regarding the target regions of the best practice examples, the majority is reported on activities based in OECD countries and a small number of emerging markets such as South Africa, India or China, while neglecting other regions such as sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa). From a European Union policy perspective, these results indicate that there is a role to play for the state in order to create a better fit between CSR agendas and the actual developmental needs in the South.

China’s New Approach to CSR in Congo: Is the leverage turning to China?

China has been the world’s fastest growing economy in the past 30 years with its enterprises rapidly emerging and becoming leading players globally. In particular, the progressive integration into the international system has been spurred by China’s entry into the global trading regime of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. The 'go global' policy has been facilitating the rapidly growing engagement on the African continent of Chinese multinational companies (MNCs). As a promising tri-polar global economic entity, its growth of relations with Africa has been both unprecedented and impressive. As the Sino-Africa economic and business partnership surges forward, the matter of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is increasingly becoming an imperative ingredient for any successful business. It is noteworthy that responsible corporate citizens should take account of the impact of their investment on both economic and social arenas. However, it still remains uncertain what role Chinese MNCs have been playing in the continent’s sustainable development.
A Sino-Congo deal seems a positive way forward, accelerating the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (hereinafter referred to as Congo) regional economy, depressed due to years of war. Meanwhile, the escalating investment into Congo has raised controversies for its no-attachment policy, with increasing pressure imposed on China’s MNCs to take CSR more seriously. Particular concerns are focused on the multinationals’ inadequate environmental and human rights protection. The recent massive infrastructure investment is arguably perceived as a different interpretation of CSR, which has aroused a hot debate about whether China is heading for status as a responsible stakeholder in the international community. It is conducive to clarifying the paradoxical issue by addressing whether China’s recent approaches have the potential to facilitate CSR initiatives or hinder them in the long run.

'The Grass is always Greener: Reflecting on Global Disparity in CSR'

The corporate landscape is ever changing. From the idea that the social responsibility of business was solely profit maximisation, toward the approach today, encompassing the inter-relationships of business, state and voluntary sectors through sets of relationships that transcend the nation state, the role of the corporation in society is being constantly remoulded to incorporate changes in said society. This evolution has benefitted many through the various Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes that have been promoted by various Multinational Corporations (MNCs).

This article argues that whereas many have benefitted from these policies, social responsibility can only be a by-product of the corporation. CSR exists as a powerful marketing tool and merely represents the repackaging of profit maximisation. This article will track the development of CSR in recent years. Noting that there is some disparity in regional trends for CSR, the article will then focus on how governments have enhanced the development of CSR practise within their nation states. This highlights a significant issue: if corporations are truly global in nature, why is there such a disparity over the level and intensity of CSR in differing nation states? As this article suggests, the role of government, the rise in power of the multinational corporation, together with the “strength” of that economy, the size of the population in that region, all impact on how robust, or otherwise, CSR is. What this highlights therefore is that CSR cannot be a form of regulation in its own right, and instead is a tool for profit maximisation, with social good being a by-product.

Accountability for Responsibility: An assessment of the Transnational Capitalist Class' role in driving a Global CSR Agenda

Globalisation has led to the establishment of a new hierarchy of leadership. At the helm is the Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) , which oversees the direction of Multi National Corporations (MNCs) at a global level. Can the TCC, as leaders in the governance agenda, drive a global CSR agenda, or, perhaps, the question should be: do they want to drive a CSR agenda?
The hypothesis of this article is that, as the structure of global leadership and governance has changed, so too has the potential for aligning national CSR agendas to a globally accepted standard. This is unlikely due to systematic limitations inherent in a transitional structural realignment of global leadership. Whereas the design of global leadership has changed due to processes of globalization, the bodies that can regulate this leadership have not developed at the same pace. Regulation on issues such as CSR remains at national, federal and supra-­-national levels suggesting that TCCs have a free reign in dictating agenda. This new class (TCC) may bear a responsibility for CSR but there is a lack of accountability if it is not fulfilled.

Global Production, CSR and Human Rights: The Courts of Public Opinion and the Social License to Operate

This paper takes at its starting point the responsibility placed upon corporations by the United Nations’ Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework as elaborated upon by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to respect human rights. The overt pragmatism and knowledge of the complex business relationships that are embedded in global production led John Ruggie, the author of the Framework, to adopt a structure for the relationship between human rights and business that built on the existing practices of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). His intention was that these practices should be developed to embrace respect for human rights by exhorting corporations to move from “the era of declaratory CSR” to showing a demonstrable policy commitment to respect for human rights. The prime motivation for corporations to do this was, according to Ruggie, because the responsibility to respect was one that would be guarded and judged by the “courts of public opinion” as part of the social expectations imposed upon corporations or to put it another way as a condition of a corporation’s social license to operate.
This article sets out the background context to the Framework and examines the structures that it puts forward. In its third and final section the article looks at how the Framework requires a corporation’s social license to be assembled and how and by whom that social license will be judged. The success or failure of the Framework in persuading corporations to respect human rights is tied to whether “the courts of public opinion” can use their “naming and shaming power” effectively.

The challenge of MNCs and development: oil extraction, CSR, Nigeria and corruption

Globalisation has led to a shift in world order with the rise of the corporate non-state actor. This rise has led to an assumption that Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) must assume responsibilities beyond profit maximisation for shareholders. With the rise of the MNC as a corporate non-state actor there have been discussions around the role of business with regard to human rights.

This article looks at the case of oil extraction in Nigeria. Focussing on the historical dependency of Nigeria and the evolution of the state into a resource-dependent country, it looks at the limitations of existing human rights obligations as they relate to business. This article proposes that corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies of MNCs can act as a preliminary stage in the quest for wider human rights protections. It is in motivating MNCs to design and implement effective CSR policies in dependent states like Nigeria, that the challenge lies.

Consumer perception of CSR in Portugal: The aftermath of the financial crisis

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature has largely neglected consumers’ perceptions in the debate regarding the role of CSR in the aftermath of the financial crisis. In that context, this study aims to test the possibility that consumers’ perceptions of CSR level, firm reputation and brand trust, might depend on the type of industry sector of a firm, the level of fit of an initiative or both. By conducting a survey on Portuguese consumers and running a two-way analysis of variance, it suggests that solely the type of industry sector has an effect on consumer perception and that consumers are less tolerable of controversial industries.