Managing Csr
In Carrol [1], we are getting a very good overview of the development of the CSR concept. The overview is based on following the development of the definition of CSR in various academic papers. The term ‘corporate social responsibility’ has been used more widely since 1950s, and nowadays it is a very-well known concept (according to Carrol [1]), still having quite a few limitations as I discuss later.
There are two limitations of Carrol [1] in my view: firstly, the article focuses on the academic definitions and their development in time and forgets to tell us what is at the heart of CSR – why, what and how the firms are actually doing it. Secondly, the article mentions that there was something before 1950s but does not elaborate on this. I think many enterprises of the past, even at the times of say Adam Smith, would be called today as socially responsible. My evidence is common sense: a medieval blacksmith or butcher was helping its neighborhood with his products, and had to behave as a good neighbor – as a good corporate citizen, at the same time (else the locals would stop going to his shop and would find another one).
A deeper look at the practice of CSR is given by Kolk, van Tudler [2]. Their thorough exploration of what companies did and did not do shows that the concept of CSR, as it is perceived and practiced today, has some limitations: MNCs have not shown a systematic effort or a holistic approach to CSR, MNCs are picky in what they are willing to do and therefore focus on separate cases and on separate issues (e.g. they address environment and not poverty, or vice versa). In their effort, ‘MNCs appear only willing to state active commitment if others in their sector do as well’[2]; and they never go any further – doing what the others do is enough for them.
World Bank [3] gives us an idea about what has been achieved in economic, social and environmental well-being of the planet, and what is still to be achieved. A...
View Full Essay