ANALYZING THE BARRIERS TO CSR: AN INTERPRETIVE APPROACH

AUTHOR

PRIYANKA GAUTAM

LECTURER

ORGANIZATION AFFILIATION

MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY, MULLANA

MOBILE NO. 9468012757, 9464250329

E-MAIL- pgautam412@gmail.com

ALTERNATE E-MAIL- p_gautam412@yahoo.co.in

CO-AUTHOR

BINDU MALIK

LECTURER

ORGANIZATION AFFILIATION

MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY, MULLANA

MOBILE NO. 9996949492, 9876962463

E-MAIL- bindu.malik3@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Companies are, in a broad sense, a group of different agents that have a relationship with

shareholders, citizens, providers, and customers. In other words, they are known as

stakeholders. Corporate social responsibility may help to establish clear boundaries among the

different interests of the groups described above. Social responsibility is

an ethical or ideological theory that business should not function amorally but instead should

contribute to the welfare of their communities and an entity whether it is

government, corporation, organization or individual has a big responsibility to society at large.

This responsibility can be "negative", meaning there is exemption from blame or liability, or it

can be "positive," meaning there is a responsibility to act beneficently. The purpose of this

paper is to identify barriers to corporate social responsibility. In this paper, critical

responsibility parameters, as well as the variables that shape them will be described, analyzed,

and formalized. Is social responsibility a way to get brand differentiation or it gives a license to

operate business? A literature review was conducted aimed at collecting relevant information

about CSR, finding answers to some questions, highlighting the key findings to generate a model

for achieving social responsibility and overcoming those barriers associated.

Corporate social responsibility is proposed as a new management tool and not as a fashionable

concept. Furthermore, the advantages and limitations of corporate social responsibility will be

analyzed in order to define a management model for achieving responsibility among

organizations. Some theorists argue that Corporate social responsibility (CSR) distracts from the

fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial

window-dressing; others argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a

watchdog over powerful multinational corporations. Some feels that it is shareholders money

which needs to be distributed among them instead of using that for society or brand building.

Keywords- Corporate Social Responsibility, Barriers, criticisms and concerns, potential benefits

to business.

INTRODUCTION

Corporate social responsibility is seen as having five themes: 1) human rights, 2) worker rights,

3) environmental impact, 4) community involvement, 5) supplier relations and monitoring. For

an individual company, this means the integration of social (including human rights),

environmental and economic concerns into that company’s values and culture. These values are

then incorporated into the way in which the company goes about its business and are reflected in

that company’s policies and strategies, decision-making, and operations.

The term "CSR" came in to common use in the early 1970s, after many multinational

corporations formed, although it was seldom abbreviated. The term stakeholder, meaning those

on whom an organization's activities have an impact, was used to describe corporate owners

beyond shareholders as a result of an influential book by R Freeman in 1984.

Community development activities undertaken by extractive industry companies generally fall

under a company’s CSR efforts. Increasingly, CSR is evolving beyond philanthropy to an

essential business function directly related to companies maintaining their social license to

operate.

The practice of CSR is much debated and criticized. Proponents argue that there is a strong

business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a

perspective broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Critics argue that

CSR distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing

more than superficial window-dressing; others yet argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role

of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations. Corporate Social

Responsibility has been redefined throughout the years. However, it essentially is titled to aid to

an organization's mission as well as a guide to what the company stands for and will uphold to its

consumers

PRINCIPAL BARRIERS TO CSR

The Survey by UNDP identified some of the “principal barriers and threats” to adopting CSR

and the most important of them was lack of an enabling environment (hindering the process).

Absence of a clear linkage between CSR and financial success is another barrier. This is not to

speak of the lack of mechanisms to measure, monitor, evaluate and report impact of CSR. Of

course, one of the challenges in considering cases "for" and "against" CSR is the wide variety of

definitions of CSR that people use. We assume here we are talking about responsibility in how

the company carries out its core function - not simply about companies giving money away to

charity.

Below are some of the key arguments most often used against CSR:

Theft of the rightful property of the owners i.e. shareholders.

Most businesses think that it’s a wastage of time

Focus on core business

Responsibility of government

Have no time for this. Got to get out and sell more to make profit.

Corporations don't really care - they're just out to screw the poor and the environment to

make their obscene profits

Nature of business

Motives

Theft of the rightful property of the owners i.e. shareholders.

This is the voice of the laisser-faire 1980s, still being given powerful voice by advocates such as

Elaine Sternberg. Sternberg argues that there is a human rights case against CSR, which is that a

stakeholder approach to management deprives shareholders of their property rights. She states

that the objectives sought by conventional views of social responsibility are absurd. Not all

aspects of CSR are guilty of this, however. Sternberg states that ordinary decency, honesty and

fairness should be expected of any corporation.

Critics of CSR also point out that organisation pay taxes to government to ensure that society and

the environment are not adversely affected by business activities.

Most businesses think that it’s a wastage of time

When surveys are carried out of the "Most Respected Business Leaders" you will often

find names there, such as Bill Gates of Microsoft, a few years ago Jack Welch of GE,

who have not achieved their world class status by playing nice. Welch is still

remembered for the brutal downsizing he led his business through, and for the

environmental pollution incidents and prosecutions. Microsoft has had one of the highest

profile cases of bullying market dominance of recent times - and Gates has been able to

achieve the financial status where he can choose to give lots of money away by being

ruthless in business. Doesn't that go to prove that "real men don't do CSR"?!

Focus on core business

It's all very well for the very big companies with lots of resources at their disposal. For those

fighting for survival, it's a very different picture. You can't go spending money on unnecessary

frills when you're laying people off and morale is rock bottom. And the odd bit of employee

volunteering won't make any difference to our people when they feel cynical and negative about

how the company operates.

Responsibility of government

Business has traditionally been beyond morality and public policy. We will do what we're

allowed to do. We expect governments to provide the legal framework that says what society

will put up with. There's no point, for instance, allowing smoking to remain legal - even making

large tax receipt from it - and then acting as though tobacco companies are all immediately

beyond the pale. If you think it's so dreadful, you should make it illegal. If not, then let us get on

with the job of meeting the demand out there of adults who can choose for themselves.

Have no time for this. Got to get out and sell more to make profit.

I have spoken to a lot of business managers about environmental performance, and it always

struck me how difficult a sell waste minimization was to managers who really needed to save

money. Study after study after study has shown that just about any business you can think of,

if it undertakes waste minimization for the first time, can shift 1% of its overall turnover

straight onto its bottom line. That is not an insignificant figure. And yet, getting out and

selling more products somehow remains more attractive for business managers than making

more profit through wasting less. It will take a long time and a change in fundamental

attitudes towards doing business before this one shifts. In the mean time, keep looking at the

evidence.

Corporations don't really care - they're just out to screw the poor and the

environment to make their obscene profits

Corporations have their share of things to answer for - but I simply don't recognise the cynical

caricature of business leaders in many of the people I deal with in business today. The fact is that

if you're interested in the real solutions to world poverty or environmental degradation, you have

to have some kind of view about how solutions will be found. I haven't yet seen the vision

described by the anti-corporatist movement that shows how the problems will be solved by "us"

somehow triumphing over "them" - big business.

Nature of business

Milton Friedman and others have argued that a corporation's purpose is to maximize returns to its

shareholders, and that since only people can have social responsibilities, corporations are only

responsible to their shareholders and not to society as a whole. Although they accept that

corporations should obey the laws of the countries within which they work, they assert that

corporations have no other obligation to society. Some people perceive CSR as incongruent with

the very nature and purpose of business, and indeed a hindrance to free trade. Those who assert

that CSR is contrasting with capitalism and are in favor of neoliberalism argue that

improvements in health, longevity and/or infant have been created by economic

growth attributed to free enterprise.

A wide variety of individuals and organizations operate in between these poles. For example, the

Leadership Alliance asserts that the business of leadership (be it corporate or otherwise) is to

change the world for the better. Many religious and cultural traditions hold that the economy

exists to serve human beings, so all economic entities have an obligation to society (see for

example Economic Justice for All). Moreover, as discussed above, many CSR proponents point

out that CSR can significantly improve long-term corporate profitability because it reduces risks

and inefficiencies while offering a host of potential benefits such as enhanced brand reputation

and employee engagement.

Motives

Some critics believe that CSR programs are undertaken by companies such as British American

Tobacco (BAT), the petroleum giant BP(well-known for its high-profile advertising campaigns

on environmental aspects of its operations), and McDonald's (see below) to distract the public

from ethical questions posed by their core operations. They argue that some corporations start

CSR programs for the commercial benefit they enjoy through raising their reputation with the

public or with government. They suggest that corporations which exist solely to maximize profits

are unable to advance the interests of society as a whole.

Another concern is that sometimes companies claim to promote CSR and be committed

to sustainable development but simultaneously engaging in harmful business practices. For

example, since the 1970s, the McDonald's Corporation's association with Ronald McDonald

House has been viewed as CSR and relationship marketing. More recently, as CSR has become

mainstream, the company has beefed up its CSR programs related to its labor, environmental and

other practices. All the same, in McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, Lord Justices Pill,

May and Keane ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do

badly in terms of pay and conditions' and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's

diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.'

Freeman and Liedtka illustrate seven reasons why CSR is something that should not be followed:

1. The origins of the concept are suspect, as they derive primarily from the field of

economics, and fail to include, among others, history, religion, and culture.

2. The different models of CSR all accept the terms of the debate as set forth by Milton

Friedman’s argument that sees corporations only as profit maximizers.

3. Corporate social responsibility accepts the prevailing business rhetoric of “capitalism:

love it or leave it.”

4. CSR is inherently conservative–it starts with the standard received wisdom and then

attempts to “fix” its unintended consequences.

5. CSR promotes incompetence by leading managers to involve themselves in areas beyond

their expertise-that is, repairing society’s ills.

6. CSR accepts a view of business and society as separable from each other, each with a

distinct ethic, linked by a set of responsibilities.

7. The language of rights and responsibilities is, itself, both limiting and often irrelevant to

the world of the practicing manager (Freeman and Liedtka, 93).

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO CSR

Ethical consumerism

The rise in popularity of ethical consumerism over the last two decades can be linked to the rise

of CSR. As global population increases, so does the pressure on limited natural resources

required to meet rising consumer demand (Grace and Cohen 2005, 147). Industrialization, in

many developing countries, is booming as a result of both technology and globalization.

Consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental and social implications of their day-

to-day consumer decisions and are therefore beginning to make purchasing decisions related to

their environmental and ethical concerns. However, this practice is far from consistent or

universal.

Globalization and market forces

As corporations pursue growth through globalization, they have encountered new challenges that

impose limits to their growth and potential profits. Government regulations, tariffs,

environmental restrictions and varying standards of what constitutes "labor exploitation"

are problems that can cost organizations millions of dollars. Some view ethical issues as

simply a costly hindrance, while some companies use CSR methodologies as a strategic tactic to

gain public support for their presence in global markets, helping them sustain a competitive

advantage by using their social contributions to provide a subconscious level of advertising. (Fry,

Keim, Meiners 1986, 105) Global competition places a particular pressure on multinational

corporations to examine not only their own labor practices, but those of their entire supply chain,

from a CSR perspective.

Social awareness and education

The role among corporate stakeholders is to work collectively to pressure corporations that are

changing. Shareholders and investors themselves, through socially responsible investing are

exerting pressure on corporations to behave responsibly. Non-governmental organizations are

also taking an increasing role, leveraging the power of the media and the Internet to increase

their scrutiny and collective activism around corporate behavior. Through education and

dialogue, the development of community in holding businesses responsible for their actions is

growing (Roux 2007).

Ethics training

The rise of ethics training inside corporations, some of it required by government regulation, is

another driver credited with changing the behavior and culture of corporations. The aim of such

training is to help employees make ethical decisions when the answers are unclear. Tullberg

believes that humans are built with the capacity to cheat and manipulate, a view taken from

(Trivers 1971, 1985), hence the need for learning normative values and rules in human behavior

(Tullberg 1996). The most direct benefit is reducing the likelihood of "dirty hands" (Grace and

Cohen 2005), fines and damaged reputations for breaching laws or moral norms. Organizations

also see secondary benefit in increasing employee loyalty and pride in the organization. 

Increasingly, companies are becoming interested in processes that can add visibility to their CSR

policies and activities. One method that is gaining increasing popularity is the use of well-

grounded training programs, where CSR is a major issue, and business simulations can play a

part in this.

Laws and regulation

Another driver of CSR is the role of independent mediators, particularly the government, in

ensuring that corporations are prevented from harming the broader social good, including people

and the environment. CSR critics such as Robert Reich argue that governments should set the

agenda for social responsibility by the way of laws and regulation that will allow a business to

conduct themselves responsibly.

For example, General Electric failed to clean up the Hudson River after contaminating it with

organic pollutants. The company continues to argue via the legal process on assignment of

liability, while the cleanup remains stagnant. (Sullivan & Schiafo 2005).

Denmark has a law on CSR. On 16 December 2008, the Danish parliament adopted a bill making

it mandatory for the 1100 largest Danish companies, investors and state-owned companies to

include information on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in their annual financial reports.

The reporting requirements became effective on 1 January 2009. [24] The required information

includes:

information on the companies’ policies for CSR or socially responsible investments (SRI)

information on how such policies are implemented in practice, and

Information on what results have been obtained so far and managements expectations for the

future with regard to CSR/SRI.

CSR/SRI is still voluntary in Denmark, but if a company has no policy on this it must state its

positioning on CSR in their annual financial report. More on the Danish law can be found

at CSRgov.dk.

Stakeholder priorities

Increasingly, corporations are motivated to become more socially responsible because their most

important stakeholders expect them to understand and address the social and community issues

that are relevant to them. Understanding what causes are important to employees is usually the

first priority because of the many interrelated business benefits that can be derived from

increased employee engagement (i.e. more loyalty, improved recruitment, increased retention,

higher productivity, and so on). Key external stakeholders include customers, consumers,

investors (particularly institutional investors), and communities in the areas where the

corporation operates its facilities, regulators, academics, and the media.

However valid these arguments may be, they have been silenced by the overwhelming majority

of those in favor of CSR (NGOs, businessmen and academics), and the benefits it can provide to

society.

Social auditing: Let companies know what they must assess (the criteria) and give them

the analytical skills to do so (metrics and indicators) (Davenport, 2000).

A more recent methodology, outlined by Lee Burke and Jeanne M. Logsdon, emphasizes

the use of the concept of strategic CSR, which is useful because it provides an

opportunity to measure the benefits of CSR in a broader context than simple correlations

between philanthropic contributions and profits. “Corporate social responsibility (policy,

program or process) is strategic when it yields substantial business-related benefits to the

firm, in particular by supporting core business activities and thus contributing to the

firm’s effectiveness in accomplishing its mission” (Burke and Logsdon, 496).

It does so by emphasizing the new idea that the purpose of CSR within firms is for value

creation. “The question that is addressed here is: under what conditions does a firm jointly serve

its own strategic business interests and the societal interests of its stakeholders” (Burke and

Logsdon, 495). In their study, value creation is most prevalent when the following categories are

taken into consideration, when contemplating which CSR policy to move forward on:

Centrality - closeness of fit to the firm’s mission and objectives

Specificity - ability to capture private benefits by firm

Pro-activity - degree to which the program is planned in anticipation of emerging social

trends and in the absence of crises

Voluntarism - the scope for discretionary decision-making and the lack of externally

imposed compliance requirements

Visibility - observable, recognizable credit by internal and/or external stakeholders for the

firm

Value creation - identifiable, measurable economic benefits that the firm expects to

receive

In the end, according to Burke and Logsdon, when value creation occurs, it is most like to

take the following forms:

Centrality Specificity Pro-activity Voluntarism Visibility

Value

Created

Customer

loyalty

Future

purchasers

Productivity

gains

New products

or markets

New product or

geographic

market

opportunities

New product

on new

markets

Edge in

meeting

emergency

needs

Making the Case for Corporate Social Responsibility

This is important for firms to recognize, if they wish to garner the most positive benefits to be

gained from CSR. This could go a long way in helping a firm.

Robertson and Nicholson (1996) promote CSR disclosure in formal mission statements

with specific goals and monitoring activities as a powerful way to give unity of purpose

to individuals within the company and increase public opinion without. CSR statements

would create a playing field of transparency and comparability between global companies

and allow customers and investors to compare accurate, categorized information

according to specific criteria.

Is social responsibility a way to get brand differentiation or it gives a license to operate

business ?

Before corporate citizenship can become a way of acting, it must be a way of thinking, and the

only way to accomplish that is to embed it fully into your brand.

By Cheryl Heller

Brand differentiation

In crowded marketplaces, companies strive for a unique selling proposition that can separate

them from the competition in the minds of consumers. CSR can play a role in building customer

loyalty based on distinctive ethical values. Several major brands, such as The Co-operative

Group, The Body Shop and American Apparel are built on ethical values. Business service

organizations can benefit too from building a reputation for integrity and best practice.

License to operate

Corporations are keen to avoid interference in their business through taxation or regulations. By

taking substantive voluntary steps, they can persuade governments and the wider public that they

are taking issues such as health and safety, diversity, or the environment seriously as good

corporate citizens with respect to labour standards and impacts on the environment.

CSR initiatives.

Many companies see a great future for earning profits through ethical conduct of business,

compliance with regulatory requirements, with emphasis on protection to environment, and

employee health and safety. A majority of the respondents claimed that a desire to be a good

corporate citizen and improved brand image drive CSR.

Case study

The Survey conducted by UNDP says CSR is fully integrated with business at ICICI. “As one of

the largest financial institutions in India, ICICI’s overall mission has been to build the capacities

of commercial entities and, thereby, enable them to become agents of economic change.

We believe that building the capacities of the poorest of the poor to participate in the

economy and society is a natural extension of this role. With this in mind, ICICI has been

contributing to the social sector for nearly 30 years, mainly by financing and advising

organizations working in the development sector” says ICICI Bank.

Take the case of the Aditya Birla Group. G.D. Birla, the group’s founder brought ‘succour

to the suffering’ through extensive charitable work. The late Aditya Birla initiated

a paradigm shift when he stated that charity alone cannot be a long term solution.

Instead, he said, “We should help people in a way that they are able to stand on their

own feet and earn money continuously. In this way their livelihood is never at stake”.

His philosophy is best articulated in his following statement “If you give a hungry man

fish one day, he will eat it and the next day he will be starving again. Instead, if you

teach him to fish, he will never go hungry during his lifetime.” The group believed in

the trusteeship concept of management, which entails ploughing back part of its

profit into community.

Kumaramangalam Birla, has enlarged the group’s CSR commitment by adopting a

‘Triple Bottom Line’ approach to management where “accountability lies at the heart of the

concept as it involves factoring holistically the interests of all stakeholders – shareholders,

customers, employees and the community at large”.

Salient CSR initiatives taken by some companies

Focus on employee welfare in 16 hours away from work at Tata Steel & Orchid.

Focus on reduction of infant mortality rate, education, micro-finance and leveraging

technology by ICICI Bank & Tata Steel.

Focus on employee and family health & welfare at BILT.

Conduct of Environmental Impact Assessment and Public Consultation for its pipeline

projects in the planning phase demonstrates GSPLs commitment to integrate

environment & safety concerns from the outset.

Supplementing government initiatives in education, rural infrastructure, health (mobile

health clinic) and empowerment at Tata Steel & Orchid.

Adoption of villages to make them fully self reliant and replication of such model

villages across India –– Aditya Birla Group companies.

CONCLUSION

In the future more and more companies, as well as government and civil society, will be

assessing the social return on investments that companies make both locally and globally.

This may involve, for example, local enterprise initiatives linked to the supply chain; pre-

employment training; local human and institutional capacity building; or designing

infrastructure – like roads or water supplies – to ensure benefits are created for local

people.

Critics of CSR as well as proponents debate a number of concerns related to it. These

include CSR's relationship to the fundamental purpose and nature of business and

questionable motives for engaging in CSR, including concerns about insincerity and

hypocrisy. Based on the literature provided here, it seems reasonable to argue that

corporate social responsibility encompasses a wide range of issues for the organization,

requiring the fair, equitable, ethical and legal treatment of all organizational stakeholders.

Stakeholders include employees and the public as a whole--i.e. anyone that will in some

way be impacted by the organization. Through the adoption of comprehensive programs

and policies that support fair and equitable treatment of stakeholders, the organization is

able to establish a clear corporate social responsibility program that will have direct

implications for the way in which the organization does business. CSR programs are

intended to have a holistic impact on the organization, producing improved outcomes in all

levels of operations."

Formal CSR statements would encourage companies to improve transparency by providing

a safe vehicle to disclose information while further distinguishing CSR reporting from

traditional advertising.

REFERENCES:

Kristen Bell De Tienne, Lee W. Lewis, “The pragmatic and Ethical Barriers to CSR Disclosures:

The Nike Case.” Journal of Business Ethics (2005), pp359-376.

Burke, Lee, Jeanne M. Logsdon, “How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off.” Great Britain:

Pergamon. Long Range Planning, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 495 to 502, 1996.

Cochran, Philip L., Robert A. Wood. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial

Performance.” The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, (Mar., 1984), pp. 42-56.

Cooper, Stuart. Corporate Social Performance: A Stakeholder Approach. Ashgate: Burlington,

2004

Freeman, R. Edward, Jeanne Liedtka. “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach.”

Business Horizons/July-August 1991. pp. 92-98.

www.wikipedia.com

www.karmayoga.com

“Analyzing the barriers to corporate social responsibility in supply chains: an interpretive

structural modeling approach.” Author: Mohd. Nishat Faisala