ethics and corporate social responsibility essay

• Use Messenger
• Send us an email

Essay on “Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics”

Social responsibility is an idea that has been of concern to mankind for many years. Over the last two decades, however, it has become of increasing concern to the business world. This has resulted in growing interaction between governments, businesses and society as a whole. In the past, businesses primarily concerned themselves with the economic results of their decisions. “Today, however, businesses must also reflect on the legal, ethical, moral and social consequences of their decisions” (Anderson 15). This paper will discuss the concept of corporate social responsibility . It will give the definition of the phrase, and identify some of the global factors that necessitate corporate social responsibility. It will discuss the importance of corporations setting up corporate social responsibility projects, and the impact these have on society. Social corporate responsibility and the maintenance of high ethical standards is not an option but an obligation for all businesses.

Corporate social responsibility is no longer defined by how much money a company contributes to charity, but by its overall involvement in activities that improve the quality of people’s lives. Corporate Responsibility has come up as a significant subject matter in the international business community and is progressively becoming a mainstream activity. There is mounting recognition of the momentous effect the activities of the private sector have on the workforce, clientele, the society, the environment, competitors, business associates, investors, shareholders, governments and others groups . It is also becoming progressively clear that organizations can contribute to their individual wealth and to overall community wealth by taking into account the effect they have on the entire globe when making decisions (Anderson 5).

Ethics of multi-corporations involves actions that are morally upright. It is common knowledge that most of the activities corporations are engaged in may not meet the required ethical standards. This is because many businesses tend to focus on profit making rather than any other thing. Business ethics is an upcoming issue mainly due to the sheer number of persons involved. The actions of a few persons may seem safe on a small scale but on a large scale such actions could be devastating. An example of such situations that may be considered unethical is the firing or employees to keep the profit margin of a company high. In the wake of the financial breakdown, many people lost their jobs. Most of the persons who lost their jobs included civil servants who are middle class persons. In order to ensure that the corporations save some money, most of these workers were laid off. Such an action is considered unethical. This is because even though the companies are somehow at a loss, the firing of all those employees means that so many people are going to suffer. The multi-corporations could definitely live with the loss incurred but would rather avoid that by firing a number of their workers.

Businesses are an essential part of the society within which they operate. Excellent executives are aware that their long-term prosperity is founded on sustained good associations with a broad range of persons, groups, and organizations. Intelligent organizations know that businesses can never be prosperous if they operate within societies that are unsuccessful. This is regardless of whether the society is failing due to social, governance or environmental challenges. Furthermore, the common public has lofty expectations of the private sector with regard to responsible and ethical behavior. Consumers expect goods and services to mirror socially and environmentally accountable business conduct at reasonable prices. Shareholders also are seeking improved financial performance that interlinks social and environmental elements, as regards the opportunities they present (Banerjee 13).

There are several factors which explain the growing interest in corporate social responsibility. The first factor is the new concerns and expectations of citizens, consumers, public authorities globalisation and industrial change. The second factor is the increasing influence of social criteria on the investment decisions of individuals and institutions, as investors or consumers. The third factor is the growing concern about environmental degradation. This is a particularly important concern given the fact that environmental conservation has become an increasingly significant for everyone in society today. With multi-corporations raking in millions, it is only justified that they give back to the community. The wanton disregard of the environment by a few companies when it comes to handling of industrial waste, the use of recyclable paper or sheer indifference when it comes to environmental protection is shocking. As aforementioned, corporate social responsibility involves activities that give back to the community, or ensure fairness in the running of activities (Crowther and Rayman-Bacchu 69).

The protection of the environment has become the center stage of many humanitarian organizations. Most of these humanitarian organizations argue that the protection of the environment should be the key concern of any corporation. This is because; the environment is the only natural resource that is invaluable to the human race. The issue of handling industrial waste by many corporations has always been at the forefront of many environmental organizations. This is because corporations are guilty on more than one accord of irresponsibly handling their waste. Evidence such as the great pacific garbage patch exists to show how many corporations are not handling the dumping of waste seriously. The great pacific garbage patch is a myriad of human waste that has found its way into the ocean after being improperly dumped. The great pacific garbage patch leads to problems such as loss of aquatic life and the contamination of the water not mentioning the introduction of many pollutants into the water (Werther and Chandler 55).

Corporate social responsibility makes it clear that it is certainly unethical for these corporations to be making profits at the expense of the environment and other aspects of the human life. Corporate social responsibility makes it clear that corporations should therefore find better ways to handle their waste disposal. Even though it is currently not clear on what is the best way to handle some waste such as hot water, responsibility means that before waste is disposed, it should pass some tests. The tests could ensure that the waste is safe for disposal and would not in any way harm human beings and other life. Corporate social responsibility is therefore viewed as a control mechanism to ensure that multi-corporations are responsible for their actions (Werther and Chandler 70).

The global financial meltdown uncovered many social norms previously unimagined. The number of people who lost their jobs due to the financial situation is appalling. Interestingly, this does not mean that multi-national corporations are necessarily suffering. Most of the established companies with branches all over the world took the excuse of the financial breakdown to benefit. All of a sudden, it was okay to lay off people on the pretext of financial gloom. This means that a few people were benefiting from the woes of a thousand more. The issue of corporate social responsibility presents itself in this situation in that, the multi-corporations are run by a board of governors.

The board of governors is usually composed of a few individuals that call all the shots. It is common knowledge that these corporations employ a huge number of persons in many sectors of the economy. When the profits of these gigantic companies fail to reach a certain goal, the running costs of the business have to be checked. This is why, the few persons at the top, not wanting to lose, resort to firing some people. This is done so as to maintain the profits at a certain level. The problem is that when all of the multinational companies resort to firing a few employees, the net effect is that, a large number of persons end up losing their jobs.

Corporate social responsibility ensures that corporations the world over are engaged in other activities that give back to the community (Crowther and Rayman-Bacchu 172). Many activities that are considered helpful include: organizing activities that seek to involve the community in such events as fund raising for the needy, events that seek to help out the disadvantage in society and other similar activities. In the financial and corporate world, corporate social responsibility is given with a positive impact on performance. There are, however, several factors that show the need for corporate social responsibility. The first factor is population. The expanding population in developing regions will create larger markets dominated by younger individuals with questionable access to the developed world’s standard of living. Statistics show that more than eighty five percent of the world’s population will live in developing countries by 2025 (Crowther and Rayman-Bacchu 165). This presents a challenge to companies seeking to involve themselves in corporate social responsibility, since it is clear that a lot of financial support will be required for these populations.

The second factor is wealth. Despite the fact that global wealth is rising, the income gap has grown wider, threatening civil society. Seventy eight percent of the world can be classified as poor, with eleven percent in the middle class, and only eleven percent can be classified as rich. Each and every company should strive to be involved in attempting to balance this distribution of wealth. The trend of the rich growing richer while the poor grow poorer should be eliminated, since it is unethical for some people to have so much and for others to have nothing at all. The third factor is nutrition. There are millions of people who are malnourished, amidst an abundance of food. Thousands die of hunger every year, while rich corporations blow millions on fancy holidays for their executives. It is crucial for each company to take time and reflect on the finances it spends on benefits for its executives, as compared to that spent on helping the needy in society. While these benefits are vital for employee motivation, they should not be taken overboard at the expense of the suffering masses.

Education is another critical factor that should be considered in the design of corporate social responsibility programs. Basic education is widespread, but opportunities for learning continue to elude many. Over one hundred million children are not in school, with ninety-seven percent of these being in developing countries. One in every five adults globally is illiterate, which are staggering figures given the widespread opportunities to learn available today. Corporates are faced with the challenge of promoting education by setting up schools, and funding educational development programs. Education can also be encouraged by taking in interns and trainees and giving them an opportunity to learn the tricks of the job, which will enable them compete fairly in the corporate world (Crowther and Rayman-Bacchu 169).

In conclusion, this paper has shown that corporate social responsibility is a vital element for nay business corporations. It has been shown that there are many different areas in which a company may choose to focus its corporate social responsibility. The first area of focus in corporate social responsibility is with regard to the environment. Other areas that should be considered in the development of corporate social responsibility programs are education, health, nutrition and employment. “Social responsibility investment combines investors’ financial goals with their obligation and dedication to factors that ensure the well-being of society such as environmental friendly practices, economic growth and justice in society” (Anderson 9). These elements are not only aspects of corporate social responsibility, but also a show of the ethical standards of a company. It is unethical for some individuals to own so much and earn so much, at the expense of other suffering members of society. It is also unethical for companies to engage in environmentally degrading practices that result in illnesses and loss of life. It can be concluded that Social corporate responsibility and the maintenance of high ethical standards is not an option but an obligation for all business.

Works Cited

Anderson, Jerry. Corporate Social Responsibility: Guidelines for Top Management. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. Print.

Banerjee, Subhabrata. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Northampton: Eward Elgar Publishing, 2007. Print.

Crowther, David and Rayman-Bacchus, Lez. Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. Print.

Werther, William and Chandler, David. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment. Carlifonia: Sage Publications, 2006. Print.

Essay on “Driving competitive forces in the movie industry”

In the movie rental industry the five forces include limited options where there are a limited number of options that are available this mainly consist of Red box, Netflix, Blockbuster and small video stores. Most of the times renters are forced to choose among the above mentioned this is because there is a large number…

Sample of a Formal Business Report

Sample Formal Business Report Purpose: The purpose of this document is to present a 5-year operational plan for the container leasing of company ABC. The document is aimed at highlighting the main objectives and the vision of the company. Another aim is to develop a thorough action plan for operational aspects of the business. The…

Essay on “Mergers and Acquisitions: Factors Determining Success and Failure”

Abstract This report looks at mergers and acquisitions globally and considers why so many fail. Despite this scenario, management decision-makers still continue to look for opportunities. This study researches both successful and unsuccessful mergers and acquisitions in order to determine the reasons for both successes and failures. Perhaps, historically mergers have occurred between companies that…

Our Services

• Academic ghostwriting
• Admission essay help
• Article writing
• Assignment writing
• College paper writing
• Coursework writing
• Dissertation writing
• Homework writing
• Online classes
• Personal statement writing
• Report writing
• Research paper writing
• Speech writing
• Term paper writing
• Writing tips
• Write my paper

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.4 Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility

What is corporate social responsibility.

As introduced early in this chapter , Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) “is a self-regulating business model that helps a company be socially accountable—to itself, its stakeholders, and the public. By practicing corporate social responsibility, also referred to simply as social responsibility, companies can be conscious of the kind of impact they are having on all aspects of society, including economic, social, and environmental” (Chen, 2020). Philanthropy is the simplest form of CSR, where a firm donates funds to a nonprofit organization such as the local volunteer rescue squad or the American Cancer Society. However, CSR can take many forms, with the end result that society benefits in some way. Environmental efforts in CSR might include reducing the company’s pollution or helping to clean up the plastic that washes up on beaches. Supporting the local literacy volunteers by encouraging employees to participate to help adults learn to read and write provides a social benefit.

The CSR approach is not without controversy. When CSR was introduced, the famous economist Milton Friedman opposed CSR on philosophical grounds. He believed, as some others did, that no profits should be diverted for CSR activities. The logic was that company investors and stockholders took a risk when they invested in the company, and therefore the company’s first obligation is to them. On the other hand, many who practice CSR believe that CSR activities ultimately do benefit the company investors and stockholders. The belief is that having a CSR strategy provides good public relations for the firm and enhances their brand image, creating loyalty and more sales long term. For example, some consumers may specifically shop for TOMS shoes because of the firm’s Buy One, Give One model, where the consumer feels their purchase is providing a positive social impact.

Some examples of CSR efforts are:

• Reducing their carbon footprint—Coca Cola
• Ensuring contract manufacturers pay a living wage—Patagonia
• Improving sustainable manufacturing—BMW
• Matches employees’ donations to nonprofits—Microsoft and Google
• Reducing carbon emissions—United Airlines
• Promoting literacy among children—Twitter
• Eliminating foam cups—Dunkin’
• Donating employees’ hours to children’s tutoring—Salesforce

One criticism of CSR is that it is seen as an “add on” endeavor for firms. Often, CSR is not an ingrained component of the firm’s philosophy and operations. In response to this criticism, a rather new movement emerged in an attempt to remedy this deficiency. Michael Porter and Mark Kramer suggest that instead of CSR, wise corporations are shifting to a Creating Shared Value (CSV) model that argues that firms should address social issues by creating shared value, which is fundamentally focused on expanding the total pool of social and economic resources (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Porter & Kramer, 2011). Porter and Kramer re-frame the business proposition by trying to recognize that “societal needs, not just conventional economic needs, define markets, and social harms can create internal costs for firms” (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

Creating shared value (CSV) is a business strategy that creates a direct link between the success of the firm and the improvement of society. Generally, CSV can be considered to be a particular strategic approach within the more general CSR landscape. A key differentiating detail is the explicit focus of CSV in generating positive economic outcomes through its strategic investments. As a company prospers economically, so do those it impacts. However, CSV and CSR both take a longer-term, rather than a short-term, approach to measuring impact. For example, Whole Foods was one of the most high profile companies to adopt CSV as a guiding strategy. This strategy translated into investing in local schools to ensure a well prepared work force and supporting local agricultural communities so it could reliably source produce from local vendors. While one traditional view of “business as usual” is that when a company prospers, it is at the expense of the consumer and society. CSV and CSR flip this view.

Section Videos

Business Ethics: Corporate Social Responsibility [02:56]

The video for this lesson further explains corporate social responsibility.

You can view this video here: https://youtu.be/xoE8XlcDUI8 .

Insight: Ideas for Change—Michael Porter—Creating Shared Value [14:09]

The video for this lesson focuses on the differences between CSR and CSV.

You can view this video here: https://youtu.be/xuG-1wYHOjY .

Measuring Corporate Social Performance

TOMS Shoes’ commitment to donating a pair of shoes for every pair sold illustrates the concept of social entrepreneurship, in which a business is created with a goal of improving both business and society (Schectman, 2010). Using a CSR model, firms such as TOMS exemplify a desire to improve corporate social performance (CSP) in which a commitment to individuals, communities, and the natural environment is valued alongside the goal of creating economic value. Although determining the level of a firm’s social responsibility is subjective, this challenge has been addressed by other organizations that rate firms on a number of stakeholder-related issues with the goal of measuring CSP. They conduct ongoing research on social, governance, and environmental performance metrics of publicly traded firms and reports such statistics to institutional investors. For example, the KLD database provides ratings on numerous “strengths” and “concerns” for each firm along a number of dimensions associated with corporate social performance (Table 11.6 “Measuring Corporate Social Performance”). The results of their assessment are used to develop the Domini social investments fund, which has performed at levels roughly equivalent to the S&P 500. Some rating firms use an ESG framework for evaluating a firm. ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance, and measures within each of these three dimensions are used to score a company.

Corporate social performance is defined as the degree to which a firm’s actions honor ethical values that respect individuals, communities, and the natural environment. Determining whether a firm is socially responsible is somewhat subjective, but one popular approach has been developed by KLD Research & Analytics. Their work tracks “strengths” and “concerns” for hundreds of firms over time. KLD’s findings are used by investors to screen socially responsible firms and by scholars who are interested in explaining corporate social performance. We illustrate the six key dimensions tracked by KLD below.

Assessing the community dimension of CSP is accomplished by assessing community strengths, such as charitable or innovative giving that supports housing, education, or relations with indigenous peoples, as well as charitable efforts worldwide, such as volunteer efforts or in-kind giving. A firm’s CSP rating is lowered when a firm is involved in tax controversies or other negative actions that affect the community, such as plant closings that can negatively affect property values.

CSP diversity strengths are scored positively when the company is known for promoting women and minorities, especially for board membership and the CEO position. Employment of persons with disabilities and the presence of family benefits such as child or elder care would also result in a positive score by KLD. Diversity concerns include fines or civil penalties in conjunction with an affirmative action or other diversity-related controversy. Lack of representation by women on top management positions—suggesting that a glass ceiling is present at a company—would also negatively impact scoring on this dimension.

The employee relations dimension of CSP gauges potential strengths such as notable union relations, profit sharing and employee stock-option plans, favorable retirement benefits, and positive health and safety programs noted by the US Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Employee relations concerns would be evident in poor union relations, as well as fines paid due to violations of health and safety standards. Substantial workforce reductions as well as concerns about adequate funding of pension plans also warrant concern for this dimension.

The environmental dimension records strengths by examining engagement in recycling, preventing pollution, or using alternative energies. KLD would also score a firm positively if profits derived from environmental products or services were a part of the company’s business. Environmental concerns such as penalties for hazardous waste, air, water, or other violations or actions such as the production of goods or services that could negatively impact the environment would reduce a firm’s CSP score.

Product quality/safety strengths exist when a firm has an established and/or recognized quality program; product quality safety concerns are evident when fines related to product quality and/or safety have been discovered or when a firm has been engaged in questionable marketing practices or paid fines related to antitrust practices or price fixing.

Corporate governance strengths are evident when lower levels of compensation for top management and board members exist, or when the firm owns considerable interest in another company rated favorably by KLD; corporate governance concerns arise when executive compensation is high or when controversies related to accounting, transparency, or political accountability exist.

Key Takeaway

• Many companies have adopted a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) philosophy to make improvements in the communities and society they operate. CSR is evolving to a Creating Shared Value (CSV) model which integrates the profit motive with solving social issues. Firms such as KLD provide objective measures of both positive and negative actions related to corporate social performance.
• How would your college or university fare if rated on the dimensions of CSR? Of CSV?
• Do you believe that executives behave more ethically as a result of legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? Why or why not?

Chen, J. (2020, February 22). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) . Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corp-social-responsibility.asp .

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review , 84(12), 78-92.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review .

Schectman, J. (2010). Good Business. Newsweek , 156, 50.

Image Credits

Figure 11.3: Kindred Grey (2020). “Business responsibilities.” CC BY-SA 4.0 . Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Business_responsibilities.png .

Figure 11.4: Chick-fil A. (2020). Photo used under Fair Use. Scholarship winners. Retrieved from https://thechickenwire.chick-fil-a.com/news/chick-fil-a-to-award-17-million-in-team-member-scholarships-in-2020 .

Video Credits

Study.com. (2013, December 31). Business Ethics: Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/xoE8XlcDUI8 .

World Economic Forum. (2012, September 6). Insight: Ideas for Change-Michael Porter-Creating Shared Value. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/xuG-1wYHOjY .

Efforts by a firm to be socially accountable by contributing to community and/or societal goals through philanthropic, activist, or charitable activities

A business model whereby society’s needs and challenges are addressed as a firm prospers achieving its mission

Measuring the impact of a firm’s activities in corporate social responsibility

Strategic Management Copyright © 2020 by Reed Kennedy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Past, History, and Corporate Social Responsibility

• Editorial Essay
• Published: 05 November 2019
• Volume 166 , pages 203–213, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Robert Phillips 1 ,
• Judith Schrempf-Stirling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3632-4424 2 &
• Christian Stutz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2797-3753 3 , 4  

23k Accesses

27 Citations

15 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

An emerging body of research recognizes the importance of the past and history for corporate social responsibility (CSR) scholarship and practice. However, the meanings that scholars and practitioners can ascribe to the past and history differ fundamentally, posing challenges to the integration of history and CSR thinking. This essay reviews diverse approaches and proposes a broad conceptualization of the relationship between the past, history, and CSR. We suggest historical CSR as an umbrella term that comprises three distinct theoretical perspectives. The “past-of-CSR” perspective is concerned with the history of CSR and business ethics as a set of concepts and practices. The “past-in-CSR” perspective involves employing empirical historical research to substantiate and elaborate CSR concepts and theories. Finally, the “past-as-CSR” perspective seeks to understand the past as a living, yet contested, facet of current organizations, influencing contemporary perceptions of corporate and managerial responsibility. We then elaborate on conceptual issues and paths that may prove useful for future research. In all, this essay and the thematic symposium it precedes strive to deepen and broaden the salience of the past and history for thinking about business ethics and business responsibilities.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Part of a broader literature dedicated to more historically informed theory and practice (Kipping and Üsdiken 2014 ; Maclean et al. 2016 ; Rowlinson et al. 2014 ; Stutz and Sachs 2018 ; Wadhwani and Bucheli 2014 ), the concept of historic corporate social responsibility (HCSR) addresses questions of responsibility and accountability for long-ago actions (Schrempf-Stirling et al. 2016 ). HCSR considers how corporations manage the legitimacy of their activities when criticism of past wrongdoings flares up. The introduction of HCSR to the scholarly discourse about business ethics and business responsibilities can “be seen as marking a historic turn in the ever-expanding field of CSR” (Godfrey et al. 2016 , p. 601, italics added ). The idea that the past and history have relevance for CSR scholarship, however, is a central theme of a more diverse body of research (Stutz 2018 ).

A first camp values a deep and complex understanding of the history of CSR practice and thought (e.g., Carroll et al. 2012 ; Kaplan and Kinderman 2017 ; Marens 2010 , 2012 , 2013 ), in order to revitalize today’s CSR thinking by “build[ing] new bridges from the past to the present” (Stutz 2018 , p. 21). The second group of scholars appreciates prior historical periods as a “fervid laboratory of social innovation” (Husted 2015 , p. 138) or a rich empirical repository of corporate misconduct among other topics of interest to CSR scholars. This camp uses history as a methodological approach to contribute to recent theoretical debates (e.g., Acosta and Pérezts 2019 ; Djelic and Etchanchu 2017 ; Marens 2018 ; Stutz and Sachs 2018 ; Warren and Tweedale 2002 ). This research interest follows a more general development in the broader management and organization studies, where the use of historical methods, evidence, and reasoning is increasingly considered a legitimate methodological option for business scholarship (Kipping and Üsdiken 2014 ; Maclean et al. 2016 ; Rowlinson et al. 2014 ; Van Lent and Durepos 2019 ; Wadhwani and Bucheli 2014 ). Finally, a third camp of research shares Schrempf-Stirling et al.’s ( 2016 ) interest in the contemporary relevance of the past for the (ir)responsible management of organizations in the present (e.g., Booth et al. 2007 ; Brunninge and Fridriksson 2017 ; Mena et al. 2016 ; Janssen 2013 ; Stutz and Schrempf-Stirling 2019 ).

This emerging—and manifestly diverse—body of CSR research affirms the importance of taking the past and history seriously. A simple definition of history conceives it as the interpretation and representation of the past from a position in the present (Rowlinson et al. 2014 ), regardless of whether mobilized by corporations and managers, stakeholders, social actors, the state, or academic scholars. However, recent literature that aims to justify a place for “Clio [the muse of history] in the business school” (Perchard et al. 2017 , p. 1) provides a note of caution—integrating history into disciplinary scholarship “requires [both] new ways of acting and […] thinking .” (Wadhwani and Bucheli 2014 , p. 23, italics in original ). CSR and business ethics academics interested in the past should not underestimate the conceptual and methodological challenges that historical thinking and acting pose (Stutz 2018 ). Consider, for instance, that Schrempf-Stirling et al. ( 2016 ) think differently about the past than Carroll et al. ( 2012 ) who provide one of the more influential—if US-centric—histories of CSR. While the former hold an interpretive historical stance to show both the symbolic and substantive relevance of the past in the socially constructed present, the latter retell the past from an objective position to illuminate the provenance of present thoughts and practices.

As another methodological challenge, one needs to recognize that the practice of history might have some similarities to other qualitative approaches, yet the temporal distance creates fundamental onto-epistemological differences in research and writing (Rowlinson et al. 2014 ). As a result, business ethics and CSR scholars grappling with the past risk “historical dilettantism” by failing to meet appropriate scholarly standards in historical thinking and practice (Maclean et al. 2016 , p. 616).

Anticipating both the prospects for—and challenges to—realizing the full potential of the past and history to CSR scholarship, this thematic symposium seeks to deepen and broaden the salience of the past for thinking about business ethics and business responsibilities. With this essay, we aim to take stock of the several nascent and emerging conversations at this moment in time as well as provide avenues for future research. In particular, we propose a broad conceptualization of the relationship between the past, history, and CSR thinking and suggest using historical CSR as an umbrella term that draws together the various threads of research. Thereby we regard the notion of HCSR as a subset of the broader idea of historical CSR.

In what follows, we first present our three history perspectives: “past- of -CSR,” “past- in -CSR,” and “past- as -CSR”. We also introduce the contributions of the individual articles of this thematic symposium to further the conversation. We conclude by elaborating future research directions for the most recent approach, the past-as-CSR perspective.

Toward Three History Perspectives

An emerging body of research affirms the past and history’s relevance for CSR scholarship, yet ascribes different meanings to the central notions. We isolate three perspectives that embrace distinct understandings of the past and history. We follow Munslow’s ( 2006 ) conceptualization of different ontological and epistemological positions on the matters of history and the past, as also expressed in Coraiola et al. ( 2015 ) and Suddaby and Foster ( 2017 ). One can think of the relationship as a continuum: On the one hand, scholars can equate the past and history (objectivism) and strive to understand the past “as it once was” (positivism). On the other hand, scholars may think of history as a narrative of the past that is tied to the narrator’s position (subjectivism). In this view, history is largely malleable despite the “brute facts” of the past (constructivism). It is this variety of past and history relationships that inform our three perspectives. Table  1 summarizes the different conversations and perspectives, to which we refer in our discussion below.

Past-of-CSR: History of CSR Thought and Practice

Research within the past-of-CSR perspective strives for a more comprehensive understanding of the history of CSR thought and practice. Research of this genre is concerned with producing historical knowledge about the idea of business ethics and business responsibility. According to Stutz ( 2018 , p. 3), this kind of historical knowledge may serve as a source of “historical consciousness” (Suddaby 2016 ) or historical awareness that may engender critical reflection on the power structures and sedimented relations in which historical and contemporary patterns of CSR are embedded.

Stutz’s recent review ( 2018 ) synthesizes existing research to provide historical depth to the received scholarly narrative about CSR. Many scholars consider the origins of CSR as associated with the historical particularities of the nineteenth and twentieth century Anglo-American institutional and cultural setting (e.g., Abend 2013 ; Acquier et al. 2011 ; Carroll et al. 2012 ; Marens 2010 , 2012 , 2013 ). Going farther back in time, Hielscher and Husted ( 2019 ) examine the “proto-CSR” activities of mining guilds as far back as the thirteenth century. This extends, as well, to the more recent global diffusion (e.g., Kaplan and Kinderman 2017 ) of ethical thinking and practice in business (e.g., Antal et al. 2009 ; Bengtsson 2008 ; Ihlen and von Weltzien Hoivik 2013 ; Van Buren 2008 ).

However, Stutz ( 2018 ) presents the history of CSR thought and practice from three distinct meta-theoretical orientations towards CSR (viz., economic, critical, and politico-ethical lens). This contrast of distinct narrative accounts demonstrates how the mobilization of history also serves political purposes in the present (De Baets 2009 ). Stutz ( 2018 , pp. 20–21) argues that prominent histories of CSR—written by scholars committed to the politico-ethical lens—tend to portray an “overly glossy” view that may neglect problematic aspects of CSR. Going further, critical scholars (Kaplan and Kinderman 2017 ; Marens 2010 , 2012 , 2013 ) provide historical evidence suggesting that CSR, as a business-led practice, may fail to provide adequate solutions—due, in part, to the perspective of their historical frame.

Leading scholars of organizational and management history argue that one explanation for the perceived dearth of novel ideas in management scholarship can be traced back to a limited view of the past that places boundaries around what scholars consider key foundations of management knowledge (Cummings et al. 2017 ). They go on to argue that a more nuanced historical understanding of how received management theories emerged and were enacted in the past can lead to more innovative and useful contemporary theory. As with the history of management theory more broadly, so also with the “past- of -CSR” perspective. Here we join Stutz’s ( 2018 , p. 20) call to “push the CSR community to become more historically conscientious” about its own scholarly past.

Past-in-CSR: Historical Methods, Evidence, and Reasoning

Whereas the previous perspective applies a historical lens to improve our understanding of past and present CSR theorizing, the past-in-CSR perspective involves tapping the potential for empirical historical research to exposit, substantiate, and even challenge CSR concepts and theories (Husted 2015 ; Marens 2018 ; Stutz and Sachs 2018 ). This genre of research draws from a new methodological paradigm within organization studies and the broader business disciplines to develop historical organization studies (Kipping and Üsdiken 2014 ; Maclean et al. 2016 ; Rowlinson et al. 2014 ; Wadhwani and Bucheli 2014 ). The literature associated with this paradigm provides practical guidance to the application of historical methods in an interdisciplinary context (e.g., Gill et al. 2018 ; Stutz and Sachs 2018 ) with an eye toward meeting the quality standards of both underlying disciplines (Maclean et al. 2016 ).

Toward this end, Husted ( 2015 ) argues that “historical material provides important resources for several current CSR issues and debates” ( 2015 , p. 135). By reviewing historical work about industrial paternalism in the nineteenth century, Husted ( 2015 ) encourages political CSR scholars to investigate the role of firms in providing (putatively) governmental services in past contexts of institutional voids, sharing many features with today’s emerging markets (i.e., boundary conditions). Warren and Tweedale ( 2002 ) suggest that business history can inform numerous ethical aspects of contemporary business including the operation of companies founded with a social conscience, green business and the environment, and the “discrepancy between the popular image of business as a highly respectable activity […] and what can happen behind the scenes—power struggles, rivalry, the manipulation of information, and the pursuit of short-term ends” ( 2002 , p. 215). Beets ( 2011 ) provides a helpful list of critical events in the ethics of U.S. corporate history that may motivate future past-in-CSR inquiries.

Beyond seeing the past as a repository of cases, Marens ( 2018 ) praises the advantages of history-work over the predominant scientific theory-testing mode of inquiry. Considering CSR scholars’ concern with inequality within and between societies, he argues that historical-empirical methods are better suited to account for institutionally deep-rooted, change-resistant issues. As an exemplar of this type of study published in this volume, Smith and Johns ( 2019 ) use history to contextualize and better understand the current debate over modern slavery. Barros and Taylor’s ( 2018 ) historical study of a significant Brazilian think tank in the 1960s provides another example. Addressing a gap in business ethics research on the influential role of think tanks on the transformation of social structures, they invoke this historical case to begin filling this gap.

Stutz and Sachs ( 2018 ) develop a methodological approach to the past that explicates yet another use of history to the CSR community. Recognizing this community’s normative agenda to (re)shape business in directions more humane and just, they argue for history as a reflexive space for theory elaboration. On this understanding, historical research is a means of evaluating normative theoretical claims and elaborating them. Djelic and Etchanchu ( 2017 ) compare the contemporary conceptualization of political CSR with alternative historical patterns of business-society relationships. They demonstrate that current CSR is a form of business-society interaction that reflects a (neoliberal) ideology embedded in a particular time and place. This literature stream suggests that history can add historical context and complexity to CSR theorizing in order to allay concerns of theoretical formalism and ahistoricism.

Past-as-CSR Perspective: HCSR and the Living Past

The past-as-CSR perspective seeks to understand the past as a living—and contested—facet of current organizations. This genre of research considers objective elements of the past (e.g., evidence of past (ig)noble activities) but highlights how contemporary actors, often with diverse interests, interpret and use the past in the present. The past pervades and shapes the effectiveness—even viability—of current business activities through contested interpretations of an organization’s history. Such “contest of narratives” can lie dormant when there is general agreement about the contours and implications of the past. However, when new evidence emerges (e.g., when the Berlin Wall came down and evidence surfaced from the former East Germany concerning business activities under Soviet Communism) or changes in contemporary norms and values affect how existing historical evidence is perceived, interpretive contest can re-emerge. The papers in this volume examine the emergence of new evidence and how interpretation of the evidence—old and new—is influenced by evolving cultural norms and expectations (Van Lent and Smith 2019 ; Coraiola and Derry 2019 ).

Schrempf-Stirling et al. ( 2016 ) look closely at HCSR by examining the relationship between “claim legitimacy” (i.e., the legitimacy of moral claims raised about past wrongdoings against corporations) and its effect on “corporate legitimacy” (i.e., the generalized perception that the behavior of a corporation is appropriate within a particular institutional context) mediated through “corporate engagement” (i.e., the behavioral options of corporations when reacting to a contestation of their past). Corporate engagement ranges from no engagement with the historical claim or claimants, to denying the claim, to fully engaging in a public discourse on the claim with an eye toward possible reconciliation of the claims and (at least temporary) resolution of the interpretive contest. The effects of corporate engagement on the legitimacy of the firm depend on whether the level of corporate engagement was adequate, given the legitimacy of the claim and the histories of the contestants.

While the HCSR—and the past-as-CSR perspective, more generally—is relatively new, other research has contributed to this genre avant la lettre (e.g., Booth et al. 2007 ; Janssen 2013 ). Mena et al. ( 2016 ) consider the manipulative initiatives by organizations to shape how larger audiences view instances of past corporate wrongdoing. Stutz and Schrempf-Stirling ( 2019 ) provide conceptual definitions of (ir)responsible uses of the past by managers and present them as a matter of moral integrity. In doing so, they also connect to the lively conversations of the so-called “uses of the past” approach (Suddaby et al. 2010 ; Wadhwani et al. 2018 ), which has mostly avoided questioning the ethics of managerial history-work.

The past-as-CSR perspective—and Schrempf-Stirling et al.’s ( 2016 ) elaboration of HSCR, specifically—invites a number of fundamental questions. Some are addressed in the pages of this thematic symposium. Others await future studies. We consider both below.

Contributions to the Thematic Symposium

The first two articles incorporated in this volume focus on and expand Schrempf-Stirling’s conceptualization of HCSR. Van Lent and Smith examine the Hudson’s Bay Company’s history-work over the long term as well as the public contestation of its past due to mistreatment of Canada’s Indigenous people. This empirical study adds historical context and complexity to HCSR, so that the authors bridge our past-in-CSR (using history to theorize) and past-as-CSR (theorizing the past in the present) categories. Their main contributions are threefold: First, following the traces of the company’s use of history in its stakeholder relations for almost 120 years, they observe other forms of history-work (mainly, heritage branding) that are simultaneously or sequentially employed in addition to corporate engagement with narrative contests of the past. Instead of assuming managerial discretion to choose between low and high engagement at t 0 , they reveal the sedimented nature of corporate engagement where managers are constrained by previous forms of history-work of the company. Second, the study complicates the aspect of “the receptivity to historical criticism within the current context,” which is a central aspect of Schrempf-Stirling’s notion of claim legitimacy. Recognizing that corporations are increasingly exposed to fragmented institutional environments with conflicting stakeholder demands, they elaborate on claim legitimacy to embrace cases of ambiguous stakeholder pressures. Finally, the study considers new mechanism of narrative contests by depicting the interaction processes of ambiguous claim legitimacy and sedimented corporate engagement. They conclude that their elaboration “could lead firms to recognize inconsistent or cynical elements in their approach to history, which would in turn provide a basis for more consistently responsible corporate engagement with history” (Van Lent and Smith 2019 ).

Coraiola and Derry develop a historical case study of U.S. tobacco companies to explore how corporations engage in forgetting work to avoid taking responsibility for past misbehavior. They introduce to the HCSR discourse the notion of an ethics of remembering on an industry level and argue that “sustained efforts of forgetting work depend on the continuity of the project through various generations of employees, which presumes the existence of frameworks of remembering in place” (Coraiola and Derry 2019 ). They advance HCSR further by highlighting how a collective of corporations engages in forgetting work and how such efforts lead to “additional layers of historical irresponsibility and may turn into a compounded liability in the event the memory of the colletive strategy of social forgetting becomes public” (Coraiola and Derry 2019 ).

The next two articles in this volume exemplify the vast opportunities for empirical historical research to inform mainstream CSR discourses. Hielscher and Husted describe the pre-modern activities of medieval German miners’ guilds as “proto-CSR.” Starting from the premise that CSR is a modernist concept, their article is not a contribution to the past-of-CSR perspective per se, but it is clearly an example of the past-in-CSR. They elaborate on early—at the time novel and experimental—practices of mutual aid involving mining guilds. These practices evolved through the interactions among business, worker, ecclesiastical, and secular groups to form the precursors to many of our modern social and workplace institutions. If today’s CSR practices have become rigid, standardized, and overly “Westernized,” it may be due to the loss of pragmatic experimentalism and a neglect of the lessons of history.

Smith and Johns use a historical lens to engage with a social phenomenon that is of utmost humanist concern for business ethics and CSR scholars: slavery and racism. Empirically, they investigate the consumer market for slavery-free sugar in nineteenth-century Britain, discovering that this values-driven market category disappeared again in circa 1840—despite the ongoing scourge of slavery. Following the principles of past-in-CSR, they challenge assumptions of scholars participating in academic discourse about modern slavery in which parallels and continuities with historical reactions to slavery are largely ignored. By historicizing modern slavery, the authors highlight the problem of overly optimistic historical meta-narratives that lead scholars to believe in the steady moral progress of humankind. Their documentation of this slippage in the arc of the moral universe away from justice adds historical nuance to contemporary thinking. Their theorization explains the demise of ethical consumption due to shifting attitudes towards slavery and the resurfacing of racism. By considering the fragile nature of ethics-driven market categories, they offer a note of caution to scholars and practitioners who place their hopes in the moral consciousness of consumers to tackle modern slavery.

Avenues for Future Research

As the past-as-CSR perspective is still emerging, we present here directions for future research that we consider promising. We first turn to prospective topics specific to HCSR, before discussing other, broader conceptual paths that may prove useful. Table  2 shows the research opportunities for both HCSR and other past-as-CSR research.

Different Media

Arguably the default raw materials of historical analysis are documentary. Historians are often imagined combing through dusty archives deep in the bowels of some library or other ancient structure. How thoughts, opinions, and directives were contemporaneously recorded is, indeed, a rich and nuanced source of historical insight. However, written records are far from the only source of insight and historical contest.

The recent debates about statues (e.g., Robert E. Lee throughout the American South), buildings (Georgetown University’s Mulledy and McSherry Halls) and colleges (e.g., Yale’s Calhoun College) have caused re-examinations of those so honored. Recognitions of place and the indigenous Traditional Custodians of the Land are becoming more frequent in Australia, Canada, and elsewhere.

To date, these eliminations and elevations more often occur in educational and governmental settings than within business firms. One notable example of using physical structures to represent and frame history is Haigh’s ( 2007 ) Asbestos House —a historical examination of James Hardie Industries’ efforts to disavow legal, moral, and historical responsibility for asbestos-related illness and death. It will be interesting to see how companies react going forward to the non-documentary physical manifestations of their corporate histories.

Acquiring an Inconvenient Past

Managers interested in the effects of history on today’s organizational practice may wonder about the durability of history. In many cases, managers would be justified in hoping that the re-emergence of a particular piece of their company’s history will blow over if simply ignored. Public attention spans can be short, and many historical controversies amount to little more than flashes in the pan. But why? What are the factors that influence this durability?

When a newly emergent contest of narratives does prove durable, common reactions include re-branding or mergers with less controversial companies. Future research may fruitfully examine the effectiveness and moral justifiability of these tactics. When and why does a company’s history prevail over obscuration? And how should we understand the responsibilities of acquiring organizations to address the history of acquired organizations?

Action, Omission, Memorialization

Asserting the priority of action over intention invokes historical questions of inaction . In assessing historical responsibility for inaction, intentions move to the background. IBM did not intend the Holocaust; Shell did not intend that Ken Saro-Wiwa be executed (Wheeler et al. 2002 ); and Nokia Siemens Networks did not intend for Iranian dissidents be tortured (Schrempf 2011 ). According to some, these corporations nevertheless fell short of meeting their responsibilities (Young 2006 ; Schrempf-Stirling and Palazzo 2016 ; Miller 2001 ) by failing to mitigate the harm they had the power to do so.

A corporation has moral responsibility for its actions and inactions if they were performed or omitted voluntarily and the corporation could have acted differently (Manning 1984 ; Werhane 1985 ). Coraiola and Derry ( 2019 ) demonstrate that an industry’s forgetting work turns into a compound liability over the course of time when the irresponsible history-work becomes known to the public. Consider also the practice of “memorialization” of past wrongdoings. Corporate memorialization remembers aspects of the past, but such rituals can also signal a discontinuity, closure, and a break with the past (Suddaby and Foster 2017 ). As a paradoxical consequence, memorialization of past misconduct may take place only in the symbolic realm without any substantial efforts in terms of redemption.

This is where the historian’s tool kit, specifically, historiography plays a role in assessing responsibility. How events and practices—including the history-work by corporations—are discussed and passed down over time provides clues and evidence of both the relative voluntariness of the action and the availability of alternatives. Articles of this volume started to evaluate current companies’ responsibility for past activity through the historical lens, yet ample opportunities for historical research remain.

Future Directions for the Past-as-CSR

While HCSR primarily uses the concept of legitimacy to bridge the past, present, and future of corporations, CSR scholars interested in the contemporary relevance of the past could use other conceptual underpinnings and foundational past-related concepts. Within the humanities, the broader social sciences, and other business disciplines, scholars understand that the mobilization of the past in the present is multifaceted. Table  3 provides an overview of concepts of business studies that either emphasize the agency of organizational actors (e.g., rhetorical history) or the constraining forces of past events (e.g., imprinting). CSR scholars can “borrow” and adapt them to improve our understanding of past-as-CSR phenomena. We elaborate on this by considering related ideas of identity, image, reputation, legacy, and nostalgia.

Corporate Identity, Image, and Reputation

Corporate image, identity, and reputation are similar constructs. While some use the three terms interchangeably, other scholars have been eager to clarify how the concepts differ. Identity refers to how internal stakeholders perceive the corporation. As Fombrun ( 1996 ) and Barnett et al. ( 2006 ) argue, identity refers to the core character of a corporation and the features that appear most relevant to internal stakeholders (i.e., employees). Image, in contrast, relates to the desired or actual perception of a company by its external stakeholders (Alvesson 1998 ). According to Whetten ( 1997 ), a corporate image is the perception that corporations want their external stakeholders to have about them. Others maintain that the image is the actual perception of a company by external stakeholders. Hence, it can be positive or negative (depending on the stakeholder).

Reputation combines elements of both identity and image (Walker 2010 ). Fombrun’s ( 1996 , p. 72) definition of a firm’s reputation is perhaps the most influential. Reputation is the “perceptual representation of a company’s past actions and future prospects that describes the firm’s overall appeal to all of its key constituents when compared with other leading rivals.” Corporations can have multiple (or mixed, or both) reputations: Wal-Mart, for instance, has a reputation among its suppliers of being a tough negotiator, and a reputation of being good for customers and investors (Carter and Deephouse 1999 ). Reputations may also vary depending on the underlying institution: economic reputation, social reputation, environmental reputation.

More specific to historical concerns, Fombrun ( 1996 ) explains that reputation is the result of corporate past actions and future prospects. Reputation has “an accumulated historical meaning” (Chun 2005 , p. 96) that “takes time to build” (Balmer 1998 , p. 696). Reputation is relatively stable, but mutable (Mahon 2002 ; Rhee and Haunschild 2006 ). Recent work has emphasized that a strongly positive reputation may also increase both the vigilance and expectations of stakeholders (Parker et al. 2019 ). We suspect that the addition of historical responsibility considerations may fruitfully inform longstanding questions of corporate identity and reputation. Future inquiries, for instance, might pursue the question whether distinct stakeholder groups prize the (ig)noble past of a corporation differently over time. Prior research suggests that a long history in CSR is useful to manage current CSR crisis (Vanhamme and Grobben 2009 ). Also, can employers use the history of being first movers on a historically controversial issue to attract new employees?

Suddaby ( 2016 , p. 55) considers organizational legacy a bridging construct to integrate history and organization studies. An organization’s unique historical legacy is a crucial variable in explaining aspects of corporate behavior. Fox et al. ( 2010 , p. 159) stressed an important characteristic of legacy when they defined legacy as being “manifested in the impact that one has on others beyond the temporal constraints of the lifespan.” Like reputation, legacy is based on perception, can vary by stakeholder, can be positive or negative, and is built over time. There remain differences between legacy and reputation, however. Unlike reputation, legacy is not comparative. Legacy is about creating enduring popularity and does not necessarily involve an outperformance of other actors. Legacy is also more enduring. Because legacy—unlike the broader concept of historical responsibility—is backward looking, the activities in question cannot be changed. The interpretation of these activities is subject to contest at any time (Schrempf-Stirling et al. 2016 ), but this is a slower process than changing a reputation.

Research on legacy has also appeared in psychology and focuses on how legacy affects individuals’ activities, on the intensity of the legacy motive, and on legacy building behavior. Humans recognize their mortality and are eager to create meaning to their lives. Humans want to contribute positively to the world and ensure that their lives mattered. Psychology-based studies in management and business ethics have investigated the legacy motive in business contexts (Fox et al. 2010 ; Wade-Benzoni et al. 2010 ). The motivation to create lasting and mostly positive legacies encourages ethical decision-making and responsible behavior in a business context (Fox et al. 2010 ).

In their experiments, Wade-Benzoni et al. ( 2010 , p. 7) found that “compared to benefits, allocating burdens intergenerationally increased concern with one’s legacy, heightened ethical concerns, intensified moral emotions (e.g., guilt, shame), and led to feelings of greater responsibility for and affinity with future generations.” Some legacy-related research found that the motivation to avoid a negative legacy is stronger than the motivation to create a positive legacy (Wade-Benzoni et al. 2010 ). Cognizant of the dangers inherent in directly adapting individual constructs to the group level, we argue that the considerations of legacy and sensitivity to the demands of historic responsibility more generally can be usefully employed in the case of corporations.

Executive’s identification with the organization (Treviño et al. 2008 ) will increase concern for organizational legacy. Future research within the genre of past-as-CSR and legacy might explore what other factors influence the desire to maintain or repair a corporate legacy (founding actor, family name, length of tenure, level of seniority, age, etc.).

Nostalgia and Emotions

Nostalgia refers to “a positively toned evocation of a lived past” (Davis 1979 , p. 18). Gabriel ( 1993 , p. 119), building on Davis’ ( 1979 ) work, describes nostalgia as a sentimental “attachment to the organization that was, [like a] yearning for the past.” Organizational research demonstrates that nostalgia is not only individually experienced, but also a social phenomenon (Miller et al. 2018 ). That is, the experience of nostalgia, like other emotive experiences, is often shared among social groups such as organizations (De Rivera 1992 ). Hence, nostalgia can be a constitutive element of a collective identity. It juxtaposes an idealized interpretation of the past with a present that is found impoverished and lacking (Gabriel 1993 ). For instance, organizational members might nostalgically recall the pioneering golden days, the founder, or the physical buildings of the organization now relocated.

Nostalgia has been introduced as an approach to investigate the complexity and ambivalence of emotional feelings and experience in organizations (Gabriel 1993 ). The topic of emotions in social and organizational life has only recently gained traction in organization theory (see the overview in Zietsma et al. 2019 ). In CSR research, an emerging stream considers emotions (such as guilt and shame) as drivers for CSR engagement. However, Gond et al. ( 2017 , p. 233) observed that “surprisingly little is known about how affective processes shape CSR evaluations.” Hence, we suggest that studying nostalgia in the context of long-term CSR engagements might be a path to fill this gap. For instance, Gabriel ( 1993 ) posits that social functions (e.g., qualities as mutuality, caring, altruism) that become lost over time can attract nostalgic feelings in organizations. Nostalgia may well be a central emotive experience that triggers the restoration or upholding of CSR practice once dropped. Such longing for the past may also be a catalyst to the sort of institutional innovation, experimentation, and adaptation described by Hielscher and Husted ( 2019 ). In all, we suggest that studying the emotional evocation of history in the present offers a novel approach to investigate the role of emotions in contemporary CSR practice.

Only future historians of the CSR field can tell whether a “historic turn” in the CSR field, as proclaimed by Godfrey et al. ( 2016 ), is underway or not. Our review, however, is evidence that the collective effort of organizational historians and scholars of CSR and business ethics has resulted in a remarkable interdisciplinary integration of the past, history, and CSR thinking. This essay is a snapshot of these efforts at this moment. Our umbrella term historical CSR embraces, at least, three distinct theoretical perspectives that we called past-of-CSR, past-in-CSR, and past-as-CSR. Each perspective draws from and contributes to a different understanding of the relevance and meaning of the past and history for CSR scholarship and practice. We eagerly await the history’s judgement—and that of other scholars—as to the usefulness of these distinctions as a lens for future work.

Abend, G. (2013). The origins of business ethics in American universities, 1902-1936. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23 (2), 171–205.

Google Scholar  

Acosta, P., & Pérezts, M. (2019). Unearthing sedimentation dynamics in political CSR: The case of Colombia. Journal of Business Ethics, 155 (2), 425–444.

Acquier, A., Gond, J.-P., & Pasquero, J. (2011). Rediscovering Howard R. Bowen’s legacy: The unachieved agenda and continuing relevance of social responsibilities of the businessman. Business Society , 50 (4), 607–646.

Alvesson, M. (1998). The business concept as a symbol. International Studies of Management and Organisation, 28 (3), 86–108.

Antal, A. B., Oppen, M., & Sobczak, A. (2009). (Re)discovering the social responsibility of business in Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 89 (Suppl. 3), 285–301.

Anteby, M., & Molnar, V. (2012). Collective memory meets organizational identity: Remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (3), 515–540.

Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 14 (8), 963–996.

Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9 (1), 26–38.

Barros, A., & Taylor, S. (2018). Think tanks, business and civil society: The ethics of promoting pro-corporate ideologies. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4007-y .

Article   Google Scholar  

Beets, S. D. (2011). Critical events in the ethics of U.S. corporation history. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (2), 193–219.

Bengtsson, E. (2008). A history of Scandinavian socially responsible investing. Journal of Business Ethics, 82 (4), 969–983.

Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., Procter, S., & Rowlinson, M. (2007). Accounting for the dark side of corporate history: Organizational culture perspectives and the Bertelsmann case. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18 (6), 625–644.

Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry, J. F. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67 (3), 19–33.

Brunninge, O., & Fridriksson, H.-V. (2017). “We have always been responsible”: A social memory approach to responsibility in supply chains. European Business Review, 29 (3), 372–383.

Carroll, A. B., Lipartito, K., Post, J. E., Werhane, P. H., & Goodpaster, K. E. (2012). Corporate responsibility: The American experience . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carter, S. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (1999). Tough talk and soothing speech: Managing reputations for being tough and for being good. Corporate Reputation Review, 2 (4), 308–332.

Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7 (2), 91–109.

Coraiola, D. M., & Derry, R. (2019). Remembering to forget: The historic irresponsibility of U.S. big tobacco. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04323-4 .

Coraiola, D. M., Foster, W. M., & Suddaby, R. (2015). Varieties of history in organization studies. The Routledge companion to management and organizational history (pp. 206–221). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., Hassard, J., & Rowlinson, M. (2017). A new history of management . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, F. (1979). Yearning for yesterday: A sociology of nostalgia . New York: Free Press.

De Baets, A. (2009). Responsible history . New York: Berghahn Books.

De Rivera, J. (1992). Emotional climate: Social structure and emotional dynamics. International Review of studies on Emotion, 2, 197–218.

Djelic, M.-L., & Etchanchu, H. (2017). Contextualizing corporate political responsibilities: Neoliberal CSR in historical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 142 (4), 641–661.

Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Fox, M., Tost, L. P., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2010). The legacy motive: A catalyst for sustainable decision making in organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 (2), 153–185.

Gabriel, Y. (1993). Organizational nostalgia: Reflections on “the Golden Age”. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in organizations (pp. 118–141). London: SAGE.

Gill, M. J., Gill, D. J., & Roulet, T. J. (2018). Constructing trustworthy historical narratives: Criteria, principles and techniques. British Journal of Management, 29 (1), 191–205.

Godfrey, P. C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E. S. O., Rowlinson, M., & Ruef, M. (2016). What is organizational history? Toward a creative synthesis of history and organization studies. Academy of Management Review , 41 (4), 590–608.

Gond, J. P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38 (2), 225–246.

Haigh, G. (2007). Asbestos house: The secret history of James Hardie industries . London: Scribe Publishers.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2017). Toward a theory of using history authentically. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (4), 657–697.

Hielscher, S., & Husted, B. W. (2019). Proto-CSR before the industrial revolution: institutional experimentation by medieval miners’ guilds. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04322-5 .

Husted, B. W. (2015). Corporate social responsibility practice from 1800-1914: Past initiatives and current debates. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25 (1), 125–141.

Ihlen, Ø., & von Weltzien Hoivik, H. (2013). Ye olde CSR: The historic roots of corporate social responsibility in Norway. Journal of Business Ethics, 127 (1), 109–120.

Janssen, C. I. (2013). Corporate historical responsibility (CHR): Addressing a corporate past of forced labor at Volkswagen. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41 (1), 64–83.

Kaplan, R., & Kinderman, D. (2017). The business-led globalization of CSR: Channels of diffusion from the United States into Venezuela and Britain, 1962-1981. Business & Society . https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317717958 .

Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2014). History in organization and management theory: More than meets the eye. The Academy of Management Annals, 8 (1), 1–83.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Clegg, S. R. (2016). Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41 (4), 609–632.

Mahon, J. F. (2002). Corporate reputation: A research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society, 41 (4), 415–445.

Manning, R. C. (1984). Corporate responsibility and corporate personhood. Journal of Business Ethics , 3 (1), 77–84.

Marens, R. (2010). Destroying the village to save it: Corporate social responsibility, labour relations, and the rise and fall of American hegemony. Organization, 17 (6), 743–766.

Marens, R. (2012). Generous in victory? American managerial autonomy, labour relations and the invention of corporate social responsibility. Socio-Economic Review, 10 (1), 59–84.

Marens, R. (2013). What comes around: The early 20th century American roots of legitimating corporate social responsibility. Organization, 20 (3), 454–476.

Marens, R. (2018). Laying the foundation: Preparing the field of business and society for investigating the relationship between business and inequality. Business & Society, 57 (6), 1252–1285.

Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016). On the forgetting of corporate irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41 (4), 720–738.

Miller, D. (2001). Distributing responsibilities. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 9 (4), 453–471.

Miller, K. D., Gomes, E., & Lehman, D. W. (2018). Strategy restoration. Longe Range Planning . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.10.005 .

Munslow, A. (2006). Deconstructing history (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Parker, O. N., Krause, R. A., & Devers, C. E. (2019). How firm reputation shapes managerial discretion. Academy of Management Review, 44 (2), 254–278.

Perchard, A., MacKenzie, N. G., Decker, S., & Favero, G. (2017). Clio in the business school: Historical approaches in strategy, international business and entrepreneurship. Business History, 59 (6), 904–927.

Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2006). The liability of good reputation: A study of product recalls in the US automobile industry. Organization Science, 17 (1), 101–117.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2014). Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 39 (3), 250–274.

Schrempf, J. (2011). Nokia Siemens networks: Just doing business – or supporting an oppressive regime? Journal of Business Ethics , 103 (1), 95–110.

Schrempf-Stirling, J., & Palazzo, G. (2016). Upstream corporate social responsibility: The evolution from contract responsibility to full producer responsibility. Business & Society, 55 (4), 491–527.

Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Historic corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41 (4), 700–719.

Smith, A., & Johns, J. (2019). Historicizing modern slavery: free-grown sugar as an ethics-driven market category in nineteenth-century Britain. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04318-1 .

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Stutz, C. (2018). History in corporate social responsibility: Reviewing and setting an agenda. Business History . https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2018.1543661 .

Stutz, C., & Sachs, S. (2018). Facing the normative challenges: The potential of reflexive historical research. Business & Society, 57 (1), 98–130.

Stutz, C., & Schrempf-Stirling, J. (2019). Using the past responsibly: What responsible managers and management academics can learn from historians’ professional ethics. In O. Laasch, D. Jamali, R. E. Freeman, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Research handbook of responsible management (pp. 1–23). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Suddaby, R. (2016). Toward a historical consciousness: Following the historic turn in management thought. M@n@gement, 19 (1), 46–60.

Suddaby, R., & Foster, W. M. (2017). History and organizational change. Journal of Management, 43 (1), 19–38.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Quinn-Trank, C. (2016). Organizational re-membering: Rhetorical history as identity work. In M. G. Pratt, M. Schultz, B. E. Ashforth, & D. Ravasi (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational identity (pp. 297–316). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. (2010). Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage. Advances in Strategic Management, 27, 147–173.

Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34 (4), 689–709.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Brown, M. E. (2008). It’s lovely at the top: Hierarchical levels, identities, and perceptions of organizational ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18 (2), 233–252.

Urde, M., Greyser, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Corporate brands with a heritage. Journal of Brand Management, 15 (1), 4–19.

Van Buren, H. J. (2008). Fairness and the main management theories of the twentieth century: A historical review, 1900-1965. Journal of Business Ethics, 82 (3), 633–644.

Van Lent, W., & Durepos, G. (2019). Nurturing the historic turn: “History as theory” versus “history as method”. Journal of Management History . https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-03-2019-0017 .

Van Lent, W., & Smith, A. D. (2019). Using versus excusing: The Hudson’s Bay Company’s long-term engagement with its (problematic) past. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04320-7 .

Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!”: The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics , 85 (SUPPL. 2), 273–283.

Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Sondak, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Leaving a legacy: Intergenerational allocations of benefits and burdens. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 (1), 7–34.

Wadhwani, R. D., & Bucheli, M. (2014). The future of the past in management and organization studies. In M. Bucheli & R. D. Wadhwani (Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods (pp. 3–32). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Wadhwani, R. D., Suddaby, R., Mordhorst, M., & Popp, A. (2018). History as organizing: Uses of the past in organization studies. Organization Studies, 39 (12), 1663–1683.

Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: Definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 12 (4), 357–387.

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1), 57–91.

Warren, R. C., & Tweedale, G. (2002). Business ethics and business history: Neglected dimensions in management education. British Journal of Management, 13, 209–219.

Werhane, P. (1985). Persons, rights, & corporations . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Wheeler, D., Fabig, H., & Boele, R. (2002). Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms in the extractive sector: Lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni. Journal of Business Ethics , 39 (3), 297–318.

Whetten, D. A. (1997). Theory development and the study of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review , 1 , 26–34.

Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23 (1), 102–130.

Zietsma, C., Toubiana, M., Voronov, M., & Roberts, A. (2019). Emotions in organization theory . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada

Robert Phillips

University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Judith Schrempf-Stirling

University of Applied Science in Business Administration Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Christian Stutz

University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Phillips .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Phillips, R., Schrempf-Stirling, J. & Stutz, C. The Past, History, and Corporate Social Responsibility. J Bus Ethics 166 , 203–213 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04319-0

Download citation

Received : 16 September 2019

Accepted : 15 October 2019

Published : 05 November 2019

Issue Date : October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04319-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Corporate social responsibility
• Business ethics
• Historic corporate social responsibility
• Historical research
• Organizational history
• Uses of the past
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

5 Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility That Were Successful

• 06 Jun 2019

Business is about more than just making a profit. Climate change, economic inequality, and other global challenges that impact communities worldwide have compelled companies to be purpose-driven and contribute to the greater good .

In a recent study by Deloitte , 93 percent of business leaders said they believe companies aren't just employers, but stewards of society. In addition, 95 percent reported they’re planning to take a stronger stance on large-scale issues in the coming years and devote significant resources to socially responsible initiatives. With more CEOs turning their focus to the long term, it’s important to consider what you can do in your career to make an impact .

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Corporate Social Responsibility?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a business model in which for-profit companies seek ways to create social and environmental benefits while pursuing organizational goals, like revenue growth and maximizing shareholder value .

Today’s organizations are implementing extensive corporate social responsibility programs, with many companies dedicating C-level executive roles and entire departments to social and environmental initiatives. These executives are commonly referred to as a chief officer of corporate social responsibility or chief sustainability officer (CSO).

There are many types of corporate social responsibility and CSR might look different for each organization, but the end goal is always the same: Do well by doing good . Companies that embrace corporate social responsibility aim to maintain profitability while supporting a larger purpose.

Rather than simply focusing on generating profit, or the bottom line, socially responsible companies are concerned with the triple bottom line , which considers the impact that business decisions have on profit, people, and the planet.

It’s no coincidence that some of today’s most profitable organizations are also socially responsible. Here are five examples of successful corporate social responsibility you can use to drive social change at your organization.

5 Corporate Social Responsibility Examples

1. lego’s commitment to sustainability.

As one of the most reputable companies in the world, Lego aims to not only help children develop through creative play, but foster a healthy planet.

Lego is the first, and only, toy company to be named a World Wildlife Fund Climate Savers Partner , marking its pledge to reduce its carbon impact. And its commitment to sustainability extends beyond its partnerships.

By 2030, the toymaker plans to use environmentally friendly materials to produce all of its core products and packaging—and it’s already taken key steps to achieve that goal.

Over the course of 2013 and 2014, Lego shrunk its box sizes by 14 percent , saving approximately 7,000 tons of cardboard. Then, in 2018, the company introduced 150 botanical pieces made from sustainably sourced sugarcane —a break from the petroleum-based plastic typically used to produce the company’s signature building blocks. The company has also recently committed to removing all single-use plastic packaging from its materials by 2025, among other initiatives .

Along with these changes, the toymaker has committed to investing $164 million into its Sustainable Materials Center , where researchers are experimenting with bio-based materials that can be implemented into the production process.

Through all of these initiatives, Lego is well on its way to tackling pressing environmental challenges and furthering its mission to help build a more sustainable future.

Related : What Does "Sustainability" Mean in Business?

2. Salesforce’s 1-1-1 Philanthropic Model

Beyond being a leader in the technology space, cloud-based software giant Salesforce is a trailblazer in the realm of corporate philanthropy.

Since its outset, the company has championed its 1-1-1 philanthropic model , which involves giving one percent of product, one percent of equity, and one percent of employees’ time to communities and the nonprofit sector.

To date, Salesforce employees have logged more than 5 million volunteer hours . Not only that, but the company has awarded upwards of $406 million in grants and donated to more than 40,000 nonprofit organizations and educational institutions.

In addition, through its work with San Francisco Unified and Oakland Unified School Districts, Salesforce has helped reduce algebra repeat rates and contributed to a high percentage of students receiving A’s or B’s in computer science classes.

As the company’s revenue continues to grow, Salesforce stands as a prime example of the idea that profit-making and social impact initiatives don’t have to be at odds with one another.

3. Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission

At Ben & Jerry’s, positively impacting society is just as important as producing premium ice cream.

In 2012, the company became a certified B Corporation , a business that balances purpose and profit by meeting the highest standards of social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability.

As part of its overarching commitment to leading with progressive values, the ice cream maker established the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation in 1985, an organization dedicated to supporting grassroots movements that drive social change.

Each year, the foundation awards approximately $2.5 million in grants to organizations in Vermont and across the United States. Grant recipients have included the United Workers Association, a human rights group striving to end poverty, and the Clean Air Coalition, an environmental health and justice organization based in New York.

The foundation’s work earned it a National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy Award in 2014, and it continues to sponsor efforts to find solutions to systemic problems at both local and national levels.

Related : How to Create Social Change: 4 Business Strategies

4. Levi Strauss’s Social Impact

In addition to being one of the most successful fashion brands in history, Levi’s is also one of the first to push for a more ethical and sustainable supply chain.

In 1991, the brand created its Terms of Engagement , which established its global code of conduct regarding its supply chain and set standards for workers’ rights, a safe work environment, and an environmentally-friendly production process.

To maintain its commitment in a changing world, Levi’s regularly updates its Terms of Engagement. In 2011, on the 20th anniversary of its code of conduct, Levi’s announced its Worker Well-being initiative to implement further programs focused on the health and well-being of supply chain workers.

Since 2011, the Worker Well-being initiative has been expanded to 12 countries and more than 100,000 workers have benefited from it. In 2016, the brand scaled up the initiative, vowing to expand the program to more than 300,000 workers and produce more than 80 percent of its product in Worker Well-being factories by 2025.

For its continued efforts to maintain the well-being of its people and the environment, Levi’s was named one of Engage for Good’s 2020 Golden Halo Award winners, which is the highest honor reserved for socially responsible companies.

5. Starbucks’s Commitment to Ethical Sourcing

Starbucks launched its first corporate social responsibility report in 2002 with the goal of becoming as well-known for its CSR initiatives as for its products. One of the ways the brand has fulfilled this goal is through ethical sourcing.

In 2015, Starbucks verified that 99 percent of its coffee supply chain is ethically sourced , and it seeks to boost that figure to 100 percent through continued efforts and partnerships with local coffee farmers and organizations.

The brand bases its approach on Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) Practices , one of the coffee industry’s first set of ethical sourcing standards created in collaboration with Conservation International . CAFE assesses coffee farms against specific economic, social, and environmental standards, ensuring Starbucks can source its product while maintaining a positive social impact.

For its work, Starbucks was named one of the world’s most ethical companies in 2021 by Ethisphere.

The Value of Being Socially Responsible

As these firms demonstrate , a deep and abiding commitment to corporate social responsibility can pay dividends. By learning from these initiatives and taking a values-driven approach to business, you can help your organization thrive and grow, even as it confronts global challenges.

Do you want to gain a deeper understanding of the broader social and political landscape in which your organization operates? Explore our three-week Sustainable Business Strategy course and other online courses regarding business in society to learn more about how business can be a catalyst for system-level change.

This post was updated on April 15, 2022. It was originally published on June 6, 2019.

About the Author

• Call to +1 844 889-9952

Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

Introduction, corporate social responsibility, business ethics, crs and ethics context, factors that push for crs, importance of crs and ethics, controversies.

Without ethics and social corporate responsibility businesses can become exploitative. A few years back organizations were concerned about making profits; only without concern for sustainability. In this era of globalization, businesses cannot afford to ignore the issue of ethics and social responsibility because with the media highlighting unethical behavior such as polluting the environment, oppressing workers the general public demands that the organizations conduct their business ethically. In addition, for the businesses to attract customers as well as retain employees they have to incorporate the new acceptable practice of corporate social responsibility.

Corporate social responsibility means a voluntary step that businesses take to fulfill the expectations of their shareholders (Andreasen, 2001, p.16). They do this by integrating ethical, social and environmental concerns with their normal practices of striving to get a profit, revenue as well as meet their legal obligation (Corporate Social Responsibility, para 1). Corporate social responsibility requires businesses to behave ethically and promote economic development and at the same time improve the quality of its personnel together with their families, community and the society at large (Sims, 2003, p43; Kotler & Lee, 2005, p. 7). Corporate social responsibility is a social obligation. The obligation is ‘to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society’ (Bowen in Magna & Ferell 2004, p.4; Beesley & Evans, 1978, p. 13).

Therefore, business leaders must take responsibility for all their actions. Organizations, it is urged should take steps that will protect them as well as enhance the society’s welfare. Some people have suggested that the organizations present in society are there to serve the needs of that society. Hence, stewards of social businesses are socially responsible. This means that the leaders and must consider their decisions not only from organizational perspectives but from the society’s as well (Sims, 2003, p. 43; Subhabrata, 2007, p. 31).

Another definition of CSR is the idea that an individual ought to consider his or her actions in light of the whole society or system. The system holds an individual responsible for the impact of their actions on the system (Berumen, 2003, p. 7). Social responsibility can be described in the context of legal vis-a -vis economic objectives. This means that the notion of social responsibility assumes that an organization not only has economic obligations as well as legal obligations, but other responsibilities in the society that goes beyond the two obligations (Sims, 2003, p. 43; Farmer & Hogue, 1985, p.1).

“Corporate social responsibility relates primarily to achieving outcomes from organizational decisions concerning specific issues or problems which have beneficial rather than adverse effects upon pertinent corporate stakeholders. The normative correctness of the products of corporate action has been the main focus of corporate social responsibility.” (Sims, 203, p. 43).

The society expects corporations to be socially responsible economically, legally and philanthropically at any given time. This definition puts the legal and economic expectations of business in a social context by relating them to issues that concern the society (Rich & Enderle, 2006, p.57). The concerns include philanthropic and ethical responsibilities. Businesses are supposed to obey the law. This is because the law defines what is acceptable or not in society. On the other hand, businesses should be ethically responsible which means the obligation to do the right thing, be just and fair. They should also avoid or reduce harm that may befall its stakeholders such as consumers, employees and the environment. Lastly, a business is expected to be a corporate citizen that is good so as to fulfill philanthropic responsibility. Thus, it contributes financially and gives human resources to the society to enhance the quality of life (Sims, 2003, p. 43).

Social responsibility goes beyond fulfilling the law. It has the obligation to contribute to the welfare of the society. An organization’s social responsibilities are shaped by the historical period as well as the culture of the society in which it operates. The society’s norms and values change over time and likewise what is socially responsible behavior of the society changes (Renz, 2007, p.34).

The interest in business ethics has increased recently. However, the subject has been around for a long time and was present during the medieval period (Chryssides & Kaler, p. 4; Dennison, 2007, p 1). For example, there were laws concerning wages and an employee was not supposed to pay a worker a wage that was below the set standard. In the biblical times the Law of Moses required harvesters to leave behind crops for the poor to feed on. Servants had to be given a rest during the Sabbath, debts were canceled every fiftieth year during the Jubilee (Chryssides & Kaler, p. 5; Natale & Fenton, 2007, p 45).

Business ethics is seen from the perspective in which an organization makes decisions. Ethics is very important in business. This enables a business to act in the right way in a particular situation. Such a business is able to impress its clients and this leads to a harmonious relationship with its customers. A business that has high standards of ethics is able to build the trust of its clients and they become loyal. On the contrary, when businesses fail to make decisions that put the society into consideration they risk being disapproved by the society (Chryssides & Kaler p.19; Carter & Clegg, 2007, 8). To illustrate this point, Barclays Bank was forced to withdraw its operations in South Africa after UK student unions went on boycott. This means those businesses that have unethical practices pay a very high price.

Business ethics is fundamental in the leadership of a business. Leaders in business are very important and the kind of image they portray to the public reflects on the businesses they lead. If leaders are unethical their values permeate their organizations (Pearson, 2009, para.4). Thus, they have to be morally upright to gain approval of the public. Ethics can cause an executive his or her job or even impede their success (Ciulla, 2004, p. 25). It is believed that executives’ unethical behavior often leads to falling of business standards, success as well as the productivity. The low perception of executives by workers often causes them to respond through absenteeism or just goofing at work. Therefore, it can be said that business leaders have to set high standards for themselves that the workers will imitate. Unless this happens it will be very difficult to change the perception that people have about the workplace. Moral leadership cannot be separated from business ethics (Ciulla, 204, p. 26; Knapp, 2007, p. 59).

Organizations operate in different societies and therefore in different contexts. Due to this fact organizations are required to maintain social legitimacy. However, due to the differences in societies what is acceptable or not also differs. There are two main things that influence CRS in a society. These are economics and democracy (Wueste, 1994, p.3).

The relationship between a business and the society is defined differently. Different expectations arise from various factors. For instance, in a wealthy society the expectations from businesses are high because they have greater resources. On the other hand, in poor societies people have fewer expectations of businesses this is because the focus is on basic necessities such as food clothing and shelter, medicine, transport and others. However, as societies progress their expectations change and CRS is also forced to be responsive to the changes (Minus & Bassiouni, 1993, p.27).

The differences between poor and rich societies expectations are proprieties. For example, in a poor society people are concerned about getting transport and pollution is not an issue even though they value a clean environment. Other the contrary, in a rich society people are concerned about the pollution caused by a certain type of transport. Therefore, they will demand the type of transport that causes less pollution or none at all. These expectations may even become laws and mandatory (Wueste, 1994, p. 13).

Corporate social responsibility encourages accountability in business to all its stakeholders. The main areas of concern are: the community, employee’s wellbeing, environmental protection, the community and the society. CRS notion is underpinned by the concept that organizations cannot act in isolation as economic entities and detached from the society. The traditional views of profitability, competitiveness and survival are being abandoned. There are factors that have led to the abandonment of the traditional views.

To begin with the role of the government is shrinking. Governments used to regulate businesses using regulation and legislation to meet their environmental objectives. The resources of the government dwindled and distrust for the regulations grew. This led organizations to incorporate CRS on a voluntary basis. Secondly, the demand for transparency from stakeholders led to CRS adaptation in organizations. Thirdly, customers increased interest. Customers have an increased interest in the companies that produce the goods and services they consume (Minus& Bassiouni, 1993, p.15; Subhabrata, 2007, p. 23; Filho & Idowu, 2008, P.1). Therefore, they are able to buy goods from companies that are socially responsible and shun those that are produced by socially irresponsible companies. Fourthly, there is pressure from the investors and other shareholders (Megone, 2001, p.9). Investors have changed the way they used to assess companies and are now assessing them based on ethical concerns. A survey done in the USA in 1999 showed that investors made decisions on where to buy shares depending on the social responsibility of the company. Those with more social responsibility attracted more investors. Fifthly, labor markets have become competitive. Employees are looking for employers who offer more than paychecks. They are looking for employers who have philosophies that are similar to their own and this has led organizations to improve the working conditions (Kleinig, 1996, p. 67). Lastly, supplier relations have changed and they are more interested in the affairs of businesses. Some have introduced codes that the business must follow or practices that cannot stain their reputation (Corporate Social Responsibility CRS, para. 1, 2, 3; Mintzberg, 1998, p.13).

CRS influences all the operations of a company. To begin with, consumers are interested in buying products from reliable companies. The suppliers prefer to form partnerships with people and companies that are respectable. Employees desire to work for companies they believe are socially responsible. Non- Governmental Organizations are interested in giving their support to companies that are socially responsible and are committed to solving the problems in the society. Therefore, when companies satisfy their stakeholders they are able to maximize their profits and their shareholders are satisfied (Werther & Chandler, 2006, p 19).

When CRS and ethics are given importance in a business it does well commercially due to the goodwill it gets from its stakeholders. In addition, it is the proper conduct of business (Social Responsibility and Ethics, para. 2). Not only is business ethics fashionable, but it is the glue that holds business together. Business ethics provides support to the business “for maximizing long-term owner value” (Malachowski, 2001, p. 9).

CRS is very relevant today. This is due to new trends that are growing and will continue to do so in the twenty-first century. The first trend is affluence which allows consumers to choose a brand that they trust even if they have to pay a premium for it. Secondly globalization, requires companies to be more accountable to the people and the environment they operate in.

The shift in societal values leads to the change of the public opinion. For instance, this change in attitude can be seen in the tobacco Industry. A few years ago the thinking was that whoever smoked cigarettes was responsible for whatever happened to their lungs and heart. This thinking was shaped by the fact that cigarettes are legal and consumers purchase them voluntarily. Therefore, they could not go to court after they were diagnosed with diseases caused by smoking. On the contrary, the thinking changed towards the end of the twentieth century. The new thinking shifted the blame towards tobacco companies for selling products that contain harmful substances knowingly and after being consumed as intended it leads to addiction which eventually causes diseases and death. The tobacco companies have been taken to court and they have paid millions of dollars (Fort, 2001, p. 43). selling of tobacco products which earlier was considered legal and acceptable is now taken to be socially irresponsible and billions of dollars have been pain as fine.

In the United Kingdom the department of Trade and Industry CRS stands for “the integrity with which a company governs itself, fulfills its mission, lives by its values, engages with its stakeholders, measures its impact and reports on its activities.” (Globalisation, para 2). Some people agree that some corporations have advanced in terms of incorporating CRS but they are still not doing enough or they act in self-interest. Some of the multinationals only act ethically in areas that are regulated highly such as North America and act in the opposite in areas that are not highly regulated. In these parts they have unethical practices like using cheap labor as well as child labor (Joyner & Payne, 2002, p.37).

Organizations are required to have good policies towards CRS so at to maintain their reputation in the eyes of the general public. At the same time they have to make a profit for their stakeholders. This makes businesses not put enough effort into achieving the promises outlined in their CRS policies. In addition companies are expected to do well in non-financial domains such as workplace issues, community governance, philanthropy, and business ethics. In the case of workplace issues the organizations are supposed to provide a safe working environment, contribute to charities, be environmental stewards; however they rarely do this because and hence do not keep the promise of being socially responsible. Therefore, there are many companies that promote the image of being socially responsible without really implanting their CRS policies and lack results to show that they have incorporated the practice (Koehn, 2001, p. 45; rich & Enderle, 2006, p. 67; Stackhouse, 1995, p 4).

CRS practice has caused a major debate and sparked criticism. Those in support of the practice say it is good because organizations that practice it benefit in many ways when they operate in a way that includes the interests of others other than they own. The critics of CRS say it distracts businesses from their core role. The organization’s role is to make maximum profit for its shareholders (Luetge, Koslowski & Homann, 2007, p.2; Schwalbach, 2008, p. 34). They believe that only people should be socially responsible and that organizations should only be responsible to their shareholders and not the society at large. However, they believe that organizations should follow the laws of the societies in which they run (Van Horne & Wachowicz, 2008, p.58). They strongly believe that organizations have only an obligation to the shareholders; follow laws and no other. Bowen is said to be the father of corporate social responsibility (Carroll 1999, p.270). He posited that the management has an obligation to make a profit and this is the main objective of corporations. Nevertheless, the management should take into consideration the impact of every policy they make in business upon the society (Joyner & Payne 2002, p. 302; Van Horne & Wachowicz, 2008, p. 56).

Some feel that the practice of CRS conflicts with the aim of business as well as becomes a hindrance to free trade (Milton, 1970, para 4). They become concerned with the society at the expense of making profit and when they fail to implement policies that are socially irresponsible that would have been good for the business. Others say that those who propose CRS do so to usurp the power of the government as the watchdog of multinational corporations (Ferrell & Peterson, 2005, p.32; Lozano, 2000, p.45).

Some critics of CRS say the programs are incorporated by multinationals such as British American Tobacco (BAT) to divert the attention of the public from their main operations which are an ethical issue. They only start CRS programs because of the benefits they get by improving their reputation in the eyes of the government and the public (Parker, 2005, p.54). For instance, BAT products cause death of about five million smokers per year. It has over 300 brands of cigarettes in the market and controls about 15% of the market. On the other hand, the company says it is socially responsible for all these deaths (BAT’s Big Wheeze, 2004, p. 2).

BAT says it has a high priority on environmental issues yet It encourages the use of harmful pesticides which destroy communities. This is seen in communities in Kenya and Brazil. BAT claims to have unique relationship with tobacco growers yet it charges high prices for the implements it gives on loan to farmers and pays them low prices. In Uganda forests are destroyed to get wood to cure the tobacco and so on. Therefore, BAT is hypocritical in its CRS programs because it continues to market its products aggressively to a new market target of females and youths. This is despite their policy that is against getting children addicted to nicotine. Their cigarette adverts in Pakistan appeal to teenagers (BAT’s Big Wheeze, 2004, p. 2). Corporate social responsibility can be used as a cover-up for antisocial behavior (Reed, n.d).

Multinationals cannot hide them under dealings anymore due to the ease with which information is shared with the rest of the world. This requires them to change their ways or risk losing business from people and countries that do not approve of their conduct. Sharing of information is very important because it gives people who have been oppressed a chance to voice their concerns (Sternberg, 2000, p 2; Bird, 1996, p. 45). For example, due to sharing of information evils like oppression of workers are reported. Just recently Nestle has stopped buying milk from a farm that was taken over during Mugabe’s land reforms. The company has done that to protest against the unfair way in which white farm owners were disposed of their farms. The farm will automatically lose business which will lead to losses. They will have to look for a way forward to earn the trust of their shareholders.

An organization has a responsibility towards its employees. The employees deserve to be treated well by the organization (Stackhouse, 1995, p. 17). The kind of treatment they receive determines their morale. When they get a good treatment their morale is boosted as well as their self-esteem. The organization should compensate its personnel in monetary and non-monetary means (Campbell, Macklin & Pinnington, 2007, p. 9). For example, the organization should have a health care plan, annual leaves and other leaves that are paid. The working conditions should allow the workers to be flexible. They should be allowed to work in their own way as this makes them work better when they have basic freedom to choose the best time to do a certain task and so on.

There are companies that are known for ethics and corporate social responsibility in their day-to-day practices. Britain’s Vodafone company was ranked the best corporate citizen of the year 2009. This is due to its policy on CRS. According to the message on its website their approach in CRS is to engage their stakeholders and understand their expectations concerning the most important issues. The company responds to the issues raised and communicates regularly with its stakeholders and shareholders about their progress in a transparent manner (Corporate Responsibility Vodafone, 2009 para.1).

The company has earned the trust of its customers. This trust has been vital as it led to loyalty, which has seen the company succeed. The company has addressed its customers’ important issues such as pricing, the way they handle the customers’ privacy, protect them from inappropriate materials. In addition, they advise them on responsible mobile phone use, safe driving and mobile theft.

They have enabled their customers to access various services through their mobile phones such as internet access, downloadable video clips, games, pictures and mobile television. The company has gone the extra mile in ensuring that its customers are satisfied by tailoring its services according to the current needs of the customers. They have worked in partnership with social networks such as Facebook to avail the service through mobile phones (Consumer Issues, 2009, para. 1). Another successful service enables by Vodafone is a money transfer service called M-Pesa in Kenya. Through this service customers are able to send and receive money through their phones. This has helped a large number of unbanked citizens and transformed the way of doing business as well as lives of the ordinary citizens. These are some of the services that have endeared customers to Vodafone and will continue to be loyal to the company for a long time to come.

In terms of the environment the company is committed to a clean environment and they influence the kind of materials used when they have direct control to ensure that they are recyclable. The company recognizes the impact of mobile use on the environment and they advise their partners to use relevant raw materials. They have also encouraged the manufacturers of phones to produce smaller phones as they use less material and the impact on the environment can be reduced through the design (Environment, 2009, para. 1).

On health the company works with partners to ensure that the health of their customers is not to put at risk by the mobile phones which are used very frequently in communication. The company has a vision of leading. The company has impacted the society and improved the lives of many by offering them employment opportunities. The mobile technology has also helped in responding to disasters as people are able to communicate and ask for help. The company also pays tax and follows the set guidelines thus they generate wealth in the countries they operate in. Lastly, their employees are treated with respect and given incentives as the company aims to retain the best of its workforce. Due to the proper treatment given to workers the company has a high reputation (Our People, 2009, Corporate Responsibility).

Ethics and corporate social responsibility are very important in business. The thinking that businesses were only profit-making entities in society has changed. Today businesses are required to be socially responsible if they want to survive. Society does not tolerate unethical companies and due to the increased consumer awareness, such companies will lose their customers. Managers operating businesses need to learn how to handle the conflicting interest of their stakeholders. This will ensure that each party is satisfied and hence business will be profitable and be socially responsible at the same time. The greater burden of ensuring businesses run ethically lie with business leaders and they have to balance their personal interest with those of the companies they lead. However, it is not easy to do so with the emerging trends but this is the only way for their survival. Ethics will not bring goods things to organizations but they will do business in a way that is acceptable to the public.

Andreasen, RA 2001, Ethics in Social Marketing, Georgetown University Press, Georgetown.

BAT’s Big Wheeze 2004, Web.

Beesley, ME and Evans, T 1978, Corporate Responsibility: A Reassessment, Taylor & Francis, Chicago.

Berumen, EM 2003, Do no evils: Ethics With Applications To Economics Theory and Business , iUniverse Harvard.

Bird, BF 1996, The Muted conscience: Moral Silence and the Practice of Ethics in Business, Greenwood Publishing, New York.

‘Business Definition for: Corporate Social Responsibility.’ Web.

Campbell, T, Macklin, R & Pinnington, A 2007, Human Resource Management; Ethics and Employment , oxford University press, London.

Carroll, AB 1999, ‘Corporate Social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct,’ Business ad Society, Vol 38, no 3, pp 268-295.

Carter, C & Clegg, S 2007, Business Ethics as Practice: Representation, Reflexivity and Performance , Edward Elgar Publishing Chryssides, D G & Kaler, HJ p. 4). 1993 , An introduction to Business Ethics , Cengage Learning EMEAI, New York. SBN1861523564.

Ciulla, BJ, 2004, Ethics, the Heart of Leadership , Greenwood Publishing, New York. ISBN0275982521, 9780275982522

‘Consumer issues’ 2009, [online]. Vodafone. Web.

‘Corporate Responsibility,’ 2009, [online]. Vodafone. Web.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) 2007, [online] Web.

Corporate Social responsibility Globalization 2008, TalkingITGlobal [online]. Web.

Corporate Social Responsibility & Ethics. INSEAD website. [Online]. 2009. Web.

Dennison, H 2007, Ethics and Modern Business , READ BOOKS, New York.

Environment 2009, [online]. Vodafone. Web.

Farmer, NR & Hogue, DW 1985, Corporate Social Responsibility , New York, Lexington Books.

Ferrell, OC & Peterson, AR 2005 , Business Ethics: New Challenge For Business Schools And Corporate Leaders , ME Sharpe, Chicago.

Filho, WL & Idowu, OS 2008, Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, New York.

Fort, LT 2001, Ethics and Governance: Business As Mediating Institution Oxford University Press US, New York.

Friedman, Milton (1970). “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”. The New York Times Magazine.

Joyner, BE & Payne, D 2002, ‘Evolution and Implementation: a study of values, Business ethics and corporate social responsibility,’ Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 41,pp. 297-311.

Kleinig, J 1996, The Ethics of Policing , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Knapp, CJ 2007, Leaders on Ethics: Real- world Perspectives on Today’s Business Challenges, Greenwood Publishing, New York.

Koehn, D 2001, Local Insights, Global Ethics for Business , Rodopi, New York

Kotler, P & Lee, N, 2005, Corporate Social responsibility: Doing the Most for your Company and your cause, Cengage, New York.

Luetge, C, Koslowski, P & Homann, K 2007, Globalisation and Business Ethics, Ash Gate Publishing, New York.

Lozano, MJ 2000, Ethics and Organizations: Understanding Business Ethics as a Learning process, Springer, New York.

Maignan, I and Ferrell, OC, 2004, ‘Corporate social responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework,’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 no.1, pp. 3-19.

Malachowski, R A 2001, Business Ethics: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management , SAGE, New York.

Megone, C 2001, Case histories in Business Ethics: Virtues and Moral Decision Making in Business , Rout ledge, London.

Mintzberg, H 1998, Harvard Business Review on Leadership , Harvard Business Press, New York.

Minus, MP & Bassiouni, CM, 1993, The Ethics of Business in Global economy Our People 2009. Web.

Natale, M s & Fenton, BM 2007, Ethics and Modern Business, Cengage, New York.

Pearson, M, 2009, Workplace Shaman: Ideals not at Odd with Good Business. FINACIAL POST [online]. Web.

Parker, B 2005, Introduction to Globalisation and Business: Relationships and Responsibilities, SAGE, New York.

Reed, B (n.d). The Business of Social Responsibility. Dollars and Sense. 2009. Web.

Renz, SP 2007, Project Governance: implementing Corporate Governance and Business ethics in Non-profit Organisations , Springer, New York.

Rich, A & Enderle, G 2006, Business and Economics: the Ethics of economic systems , Peeters publishers, New York.

Schwalbach, J 2008, Corporate Social Responsibility , Gabler Verlag, New York.

Sims, R 2003, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants, Fall Greenwood Publishing Group, New York.

Stackhouse, LM 1995, On Moral Business: Classical and Contemporary Resources for Ethics in Economic Life , Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, New York.

Sternberg, E 2000, Just Business: business ethics in Action, Oxford University Press, London.

Subhabrata, BB, 2007, Corporate Social Responsibility: the Good, The Bad and the Ugly , Edward Elgar Publishing, New York.

Van Horne, C J & Wachowicz, k 2008, Fundamentals of Financial Management, New York, Financial Times Prent. Int.

Vodafone, 2009, Corporate Responsibility [online] Vodafone. Web.

Werther, B W and Chandler, D 2006, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment, SAGE, New York. SBN141291373X.

Wueste, ED 1994, Professional Ethics and Social Responsibility, Rowman & Littlefield, New York.

Cite this paper

Select style

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

BusinessEssay. (2022, December 9). Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility. https://business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility/

"Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility." BusinessEssay , 9 Dec. 2022, business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility/.

BusinessEssay . (2022) 'Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility'. 9 December.

BusinessEssay . 2022. "Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility." December 9, 2022. https://business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility/.

1. BusinessEssay . "Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility." December 9, 2022. https://business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility/.

Bibliography

BusinessEssay . "Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility." December 9, 2022. https://business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility/.

• Morals and Ethics – Leadership Perspectives
• Ethical Behaviour in Business and Non-Profits
• Moral Awareness in Ethical Decision Making
• Moral Issues in Business: Capitalism and Socialism
• Organization and Management: Corporate Social Responsibility
• AWB Company: Ethical Value and Practices
• Ethical Role of Corporations
• Business Ethics in Financial Markets
• Business & Law. Company and Its Stakeholders
• Moral Issues in Business

Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholders Essay

Introduction, the role of stakeholder management, the role of ethics officer in the organization, works cited.

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) seems to have largely intertwined in the business environment within the past decades. Whereas, some time ago, the idea of ethical conduct and responsible performance used to be treated seriously by large corporations only, today, these aspects have become an essential strategy’s part of any organization. According to some specialists, the intention to receive the status of an ethically grounded company might be connected with the development of social media and the Internet, which has made the details of any corporate activity much more transparent and accessible to the public (Popa and Salanță 139). Thus, more and more companies consider CSR to be a useful tool for both creating a respectable image and improving their competitive ability.

Meanwhile, although the majority of stakeholders formally claim that CRS is one of their primary concerns, the experience shows that little effort is done to achieve some significant results in practice. Numerous researchers state that most of the ethically-related efforts are still focused on various types of charity, while the following activity initially implies a broad range of directions, including the environment care, the human rights’ preservation, and honest cooperation, to name but a few (Popa and Salanță 141).

Therefore, managers often tend to make a common mistake – they put a particular focus on the needs of one stakeholder group, neglecting those of the others. One should necessarily point out that considering all the stakeholders’ interests plays a key role in the formation of a profound ethical policy. Hence, globally speaking, one should act equally responsible towards suppliers, customers, society, staff and all the other participants of the collaboration process in order to become truly socially responsible.

Whereas the necessity of developing an effective CRS policy seems to be undoubted, the means of accomplishing this task are widely debated. Thus, one of the key challenges in the relevant field is finding a solution that will help to involve all the employees in the process. In other words, the principles of CRS must be strictly followed not only by the top management’s department but by all the staff. At first sight, one might assume that the easiest way to cope with the problem for a company is to introduce some official Code of Ethics or another document of a similar character.

However, one should be prepared for the fact that the efficiency of this tool will not be necessarily high. Thus, Popa and Salanță suggest that such measures are rather favorable, though ultimately insufficient. According to the researchers, one of the most effective methods to provide employees’ social responsibility is to charge them with the tasks that initially exclude any possibility of making an unethical decision (Popa and Salanță 141).

The success of a particular ethical policy largely depends on the way one manages to monitor its pursuit. Hence, it is significant that all the employees are ethically grounded while facing the most ambiguous situations. Due to the development of modern informational technologies, one has a lot of opportunities to audit the staff’s performance and remain aware of the most critical problems in a particular department.

The simplest way to check whether subordinates stick to the fundamental ethical principles is to turn the Internet source into a feedback tool. Enabling the customers to share their opinion on the staff’s performance will not only assist in defining the key drawbacks of the workforce’s approach but will also become a powerful motivation for the subordinates to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner.

The assumption that social media and the Internet represent highly effective tools for the improvement of ethical sustainability in a company is widely shared by different analysts. Thus, Popa and Salanță introduce an example of the Public Eye Awards, the ceremony that is aimed at pointing out the companies with both the best and the worst CSR performance. The specialists believe that such social recognition plays an important role in encouraging an organization to devote more attention to their ethical strategies (Popa and Salanță 142).

Popa and Salanță state that general business culture is the determining factor of the CSR policy’s efficiency (141). The problem is that the responsibility of developing this culture is often assigned to the managers that are too busy to treat this matter properly. In this case, one of the possible solutions is the employment of the Ethics Officer, who will be in charge of handling all the ethical problems within the organization. The principal responsibilities of such an officer are to make sure that the ethical policy is properly installed and that the employees orderly adhere to its principles. Theoretically, the following specialist is to become the provider of the highest ethical culture as well as to represent an intermediary between the corporate interests and those of the external stakeholders.

Nevertheless, one should note that the tasks assigned to the Ethics Officer are rather problematic to be accomplished in practice. The major difficulty is that the relevant specialist depends largely on the general ethical policy that the shareholders pursue; thus, if the top management of a company tends to neglect the base principles of ethics and is likely to practice fraud, tax avoidance or environmental pollution, the Ethics Officer has few opportunities to improve the situation considerably.

Therefore, the effectiveness of the Ethics Officer as a warrantor of CRS standards maintenance is rather questionable. Some specialists tend to believe that naming the Ethics Officer is an ultimately formal measure that is insufficient for providing a truly efficient ethical strategy (Popa and Salanță 141).

In conclusion, one should point out that the concept of CSR is a complex notion that consists of numerous minor aspects. Thus, the presence of particular operational efforts related to organizational ethics does not necessarily imply the fact that the relevant company is socially responsible. In restrained terms, a company’s efforts aimed at maintaining ethical sustainability might be determined by the willingness to hide some irresponsible actions. In such cases, the relevant efforts lack a true ethical implication and, thus, have no direct connection with the CSR concept.

There are also instances where organizational ethics does not coincide with the general principals of CSR. Hence, for example, a company might conduct a highly responsible ethical policy within its workforce and, at the same time, show careless behavior towards the environment or the society. In the meantime, other companies might, on the contrary, lack the formal Ethic Codes but show the performance that respects the interest of all the stakeholders. On the whole, CSR concepts might serve as a fundamental base that a company should rely on while working out its organizational ethics policy.

Popa, Mirela and Irina Salanță. “Corporate Social Responsibility versus Corporate Social Irresponsibility.” Management & Marketing 9.2 (2014): 135-144. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, June 13). Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholders. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-social-responsibility-and-stakeholders/

"Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholders." IvyPanda , 13 June 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-social-responsibility-and-stakeholders/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholders'. 13 June.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholders." June 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-social-responsibility-and-stakeholders/.

1. IvyPanda . "Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholders." June 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-social-responsibility-and-stakeholders/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholders." June 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-social-responsibility-and-stakeholders/.

• Marsupial Company's CRS Project
• Ethical Benefits of Corporate Social Responsibilities in a Workplace
• Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on Business Projects
• The Management of Cardiorenal Syndrome: Poster Analysis
• Dough Pizza Company in the Food Truck Industry
• Researching and Analysis of the Nursing System
• Nestle Company's Business Ethics
• CSR in the Telecommunications Industry
• Technological Challenges in Managing CSR
• The CSR Models for Toyota, Nissan, and Honda
• Ethics in Leadership: Role, Conduct and Virtues
• The Reynolds Company Business Ethics
• The Tobacco Industry Ethical Nature of a Business
• China's Leading Companies Ethical Fitness
• Engineering Codes of Ethics