Reasons to be cheerful? What we know about csr's impact

Abstract

For all the claims made about the positive and negative consequences of corporate social responsibility (csr), there is surprisingly little information about the outcomes it delivers. This is especially true in the developing country context, where the claims made about the role csr can play in social and economic development are largely unsubstantiated. This is not to say that we know nothing about csr's impact: on the contrary, we know a considerable amount about certain areas of impact, but very little about csr's consequences for the intended beneficiaries in whose name it is being conducted. It is also not to claim we are unable to assess developmental impacts, although the wealth of experience of the international development community has not been adopted by csr practitioners. This paper demonstrates the limitations of current knowledge by identifying a framework that explains the types of impact we know about and how they primarily reflect business concerns. It makes clear that we know most about csr's impact on business itself and the benefits for business, and least about how csr affects the major societal issues it was intended to tackle. The paper concludes with a discussion of the consequences of this situation, and how it might be addressed in the future.

Notes

1 C Roche, Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to Value Change, Oxford: Oxfam and Novib, 1999.

2 www.community.nestle.com, accessed 27 September 2006; www.angloamerican.co.uk/cr/socialresponsibilty, accessed 27 September 2006; www.worldbank.org/privatesector, accessed 24 March 2004; and www.csr.gov.uk/whatiscsr.shtml, accessed 27 September 2006.

3 ifat, Fair trade in Europe 2005: Facts and Figures on Fair Trade in 25 European Countries, Culemborg: International Fair Trade Association., 2006; and Traidcraft, Fair Trade is a European Success Story, Gateshead: Traidcraft, 2005, at http://www.traidcraft.co.uk/template2.asp?pageID=1890&fromID=0, accessed 30 March 2006.

4 kpmg, kpmg International Survey of csr Reporting 2005, Amsterdam: kpmg, 2005.

5 J Clay, Exploring the Links between International Business and Poverty Reduction: A Case Study of Unilever in Indonesia, Oxford: Oxfam, 2005.

6 E Clark, ‘Manufacturing the evidence’, Supply Management, 26 May 2005.

7 Impactt, Changing over Time: Tackling Supply Chain Labour Issues through Business Practice, London: Impactt, 2005.

8 SustainAbility and unep, Trust Us: The Global Reporters 2002 Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting, London: SustainAbility and United Nations Environment Programme, 2002; and KA Elliott & RB Freeman, Can Labor Standards Improve under Globalization?, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2003.

9 Elliott & Freeman, Can Labor Standards Improve under Globalization?.

10 H Schafer, ‘International corporate social responsibility rating systems: conceptual outline and empirical results’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 20, 2005, pp 107 – 120.

11 JD Margolis & JP Walsh, ‘Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (2), 2003, pp 268 – 305.

12 See, for instance, JL Baker, Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for Practitioners, World Bank: Washington, DC, 2000; and R Howitt, Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous Peoples, London: Routledge, 2001.

13 BM Mitnick, ‘Commitment, revelation, and the testaments of belief: the metrics of measurement of corporate social performance’, Business and Society, 39 (4), 2000, pp 419 – 465.

14 www.fsc.org, accessed 11 November 2006.

15 www.unilever.com, accessed 11 November 2006.

16 www.bp.com, accessed 11 November 2006.

17 A McWilliams & D Siegel, ‘Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?’, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 2000, pp 603 – 609.

18 D Vogel, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2005, p 73.

19 See the Centre for Economic Change at the London School of Economics's 2005 report on work-life balance, accessible at http://cep.lse.ac.uk.

20 NC Smith, ‘Corporate social responsibility: whether or how?’, California Management Review, 45 (14), 2003, pp 52 – 76.

21 ‘Fruitful venture’, Corporate Citizenship Briefing, June/July 2006, p 10.

22 S Schmidheiny, ‘A view of corporate citizenship in Latin America’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 21, 2006, pp 21 – 24.

23 C Collinson, The Business Costs of Ethical Supply Chain Management: Kenya Flower Industry Case Study, Chatham: Natural Resources Institute, 2001; and C Collinson & M Leon, Economic Viability of Ethical Cocoa Trading in Ecuador, Chatham: Natural Resources Institute, 2000.

24 D Wood, ‘Theory and integrity in business and society’, Business and Society, 39 (4), 2000, pp 359 – 378.

25 Vogel, The Market for Virtue.

26 eti, Putting Ethics to Work: Annual Report 2003/2004, London: Ethical Trading Initiative, 2004.

27 Ibid; and Vogel, The Market for Virtue.

28 D O'Rourke, ‘Outsourcing regulation: non-governmental systems of labor standards and monitoring’, Policy Studies Journal, 31 (1), 2003, pp 1 – 29; and eti, Annual Report 2004/2005: ‘Driving Change’, London: Ethical Trading Initiative, 2005.

29 ME Blowfield, ‘Corporate social responsibility: reinventing the meaning of development?’, International Affairs, 81 (3), 2005, pp 515 – 524.

30 Compare, for example, Vogel, The Market for Virtue, with Elliott & Freeman, Can Labor Standards Improve under Globalization?, and DK Brown, ‘Improving working conditions: what works and what doesn't—existing empirical evidence and historical experience’, paper presented at the ‘Globalization and Labor in Developing Countries’ conference, Brown University, December 2004.

31 ccc, Going Global: How US-based Multinationals are Operationalizing Corporate Citizenship on a Global Platform, Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Corporate Citizenship, 2005.

32 S Phillips & R Edwards, ‘Development, impact assessment and the praise culture’, Critique of Anthropology, 20 (1), 2000, pp 47 – 66.