PDF

Published

2016-07-07

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 2 (2016)

Section

Review Articles

License

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Kowalski, R. (2016). A logical response to corporate social responsibility. Environment and Social Psychology, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.18063/ESP.2016.02.001

A logical response to corporate social responsibility

Robert Kowalski


DOI: https://doi.org/10.18063/ESP.2016.02.001


Keywords: corporate citizenship, environmental sustainability, ethics, oxymoron, stakeholder management

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is argued to be a flawed concept in the same way as sustainable development in that it seeks to combine two aspects which are incommensurable. Nevertheless CSR contains an expanding space for social and environmental concerns under the guise of stakeholder management which undoubtedly influences the commercial bottom line. It is proposed that the concept of corporate citizenship is separated from what is now termed corporate social responsiveness to encompass truly ethical and normative considerations which in business should be manifested by a wholehearted acceptance of the need for regulation, lobbying for the universality of that regulation and an avoidance of undue influence on government. Proper roles for the three partners in society, namely government, commerce and civil society are explored together with the nature of citizenship.

References

[1]. Balcerowicz L, 2013, The post-socialist transition in a comparative perspective: the lessons. Proceedings of the 19th International Farm Management Congress Vol.3,: Transforming Agriculture — Between Policy, Science and the Consumer, July 21–26, 2013, Warsaw, Poland.

[2]. Barque C, 1993, The End of Economics?. London: Zed Books.

[3]. Bauman Z, 2000, Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

[4]. Bendell J, (eds) 2000a, Civil regulation: a new form of democratic governance for the global economy?, in Terms for Endearment. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited, 239–254.

[5]. Bendell J, (ed) 2000b, Introduction: working with stakeholder pressure for sustainable development. in Terms for Endearment. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited, 14–29.

[6]. Bichler S and Nitzan J, 2012, Capital as power: toward a new cosmology of capitalism. Real-World Economics Review, vol.61: 65–84.

[7]. Brinkerhoff J M, 2002, Partnership for International Development: Rhetoric or Results? Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

[8]. Browne J, Nuttall R and Stadlen T, 2015, Connect – How Companies Succeed by Engaging Radically With Society, London: Virgin Books.

[9]. Carroll A B, 1991, The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, vol.34(4): 39–48.

[10]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G.

[11]. Carroll A B, 1999, Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, vol.38(3): 268–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303.

[12]. Contu A and Girei E, 2013, NGOs management and the value of ‘partnerships’ for equality in international development: what’s in a name?. Human Relations, vol.67(2): 205–232.

[13]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726713489999.

[14]. Craig Smith N, 2003, Corporate social responsibility: not whether, but how?, in London Business School, Centre for Marketing Working Paper, 03–701.

[15]. Crewe E and Harrison E, 1998, Whose Development? An Ethnography of Aid. London: Zed Books.

[16]. Dahlsrud A, 2008, How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol.15(1): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.132.

[17]. Donaldson T, 1982, Corporations and Morality, Philosophy Documentation Center, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[18]. Douthwaite R, (eds) 1999, Is it possible to build a sustainable world?, in Critical Development Theory. Dhaka: The University Press, 157–177.

[19]. Drucker P F, 1984, The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, vol.58(2): 53–63.

[20]. Eriksson M B, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership. London: Zed Books.

[21]. Espejo R, 2004, The footprint of complexity: the embodiment of social systems. Kybernetes, vol.33(3/4): 671–700.

[22]. Esteva G and Prakash M S, 1998, Beyond development, what?. Development in Practice, vol.8(3): 280–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614529853585.

[23]. European Commission, 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), viewed October 11, 2004,

[24]. European Commission, 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), viewed October 11, 2004,

[25]. <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-109_en.htm>

[26]. Friedman M, 1962, Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[27]. Friedman M, 1970, The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, 173–178.

[28]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14.

[29]. Hamann R and Acutt N, 2003, How should civil society (and the government) respond to ‘corporate social responsibility’? A critique of business motivations and the potential for partnerships. Development Southern Africa, vol.20(2): 255–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03768350302956.

[30]. Hardin G, 1973, Exploring New Ethics for Survival: The Voyage of the Spaceship Beagle. New York: Pelican Books.

[31]. Harvey D, 2011, The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism. London: Profile Books.

[32]. Hillman A J and Keim G D, 2001, Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line?. Strategic Management Journal, vol.22(2): 125–139.

[33]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:2<125::AID-SMJ150>3.0.CO;2-H.

[34]. Korten D C, 2006, From empire to earth community, in The Great Turning. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

[35]. Kowalski R, (eds) 2010, Stakeholder conflict: a case study of the African cherry: Prunus Africana, in Construction Stakeholder Management. London: Blackwell-Wiley, 354–355.

[36]. Kowalski R, 2013, Sense and sustainability — the paradoxes that sustain. World Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm Research, vol.69(2): 75–88.

[37]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2012.762199.

[38]. Kowalski R, 2014, Paradox in the Contrivance of Human Development. New York: iUniverse.

[39]. Latouche S, 2003, Sustainable development as a paradox. Paper given at a Symposium of the Religion, Science and the Environment Movement on the Baltic Sea, viewed August 4, 2004. <http://www.rsesymposia.org/themedia/File/1151679499-Plenary2_Latouche.pdf>

[40]. Lee M P, 2008, A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, vol.10(1): 53–73.

[41]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00226.x.

[42]. Mayers J and Vermeulen S, 2002, An international review with proposals for improving forests, enterprise and livelihoods, in Company-Community Forestry Partnerships: From Raw Deals to Mutual Gains?. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

[43]. McWilliams A, Siegel D S and Wright P M, 2006, Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, vol.43(1): 1–18.

[44]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x.

[45]. Meppem A and Bourke S, 1999, Different ways of knowing: a communicative turn toward sustainability. Ecological Economics, vol.30(3), 389–404.

[46]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00053-1.

[47]. Meppem A and Gill R, 1998, Planning for sustainability as a learning concept. Ecological Economics, vol.26(2): 121–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00117-1.

[48]. Miller D and Sklair L, 2010, Capitalist globalization, corporate social responsibility and social policy. Critical Social Policy, vol.30(4): 472–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261018310376804.

[49]. Murphy D F and Coleman G, (eds) 2000, Thinking partners: business, NGOs and the partnership concept, in Terms for Endearment. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited, 207–215.

[50]. Nalband N A and Al Kelabi S, 2014, Redesigning Carroll’s CSR pyramid model. Journal of Advanced Management Science, vol.2(3): 236–239.

[51]. http://dx.doi.org/10.12720/joams.2.3.236-239.

[52]. Newell P, (ed) 2000, Globalisation and the new politics of sustainable development, in Terms for Endearment. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited, 31–39.

[53]. O’Connor J, 1998, Essays in ecological Marxism, in Natural Causes. New York: The Guildford Press.

[54]. Orr D W, 2004, Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

[55]. Parguel B, Benoît-Moreau F and Larceneux F, 2011, How sustainability ratings might deter “greenwashing”: a closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, vol.102(1): 15–28.

[56]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2.

[57]. Pieterse J N, (ed) 1999, Critical Holism and the Tao of development, in Critical Development Theory. Dhaka: The University Press, 63–88.

[58]. Ramus C A and Montiel I, 2005, When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing?. Business and Society, vol.44(4): 377–414.

[59]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278120.

[60]. Rodrik D, 2011, The Globalization Paradox: Why Global Markets, States and Democracy Can’t Coexist, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[61]. Shultz H and Smith O C, 2001, Starbucks Coffee Company: Corporate Social Responsibility Annual Report. USA: Starbucks.

[62]. Sklair L and Miller D, 2010, Capitalist globalization, corporate social responsibility and social policy, viewed January 1, 2016, <https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/532566/SklairCSP376804.pdf>

[63]. Sullivan R and Warner M, (eds) 2004, Introduction, in Putting Partnerships to Work. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, 12–23.

[64]. UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development), 1995, States of Disarray: The Social Effects of Globalization. Geneva: UNRISD.

[65]. Visvanathan S, 1991, Mrs. Brundtland’s disenchanted cosmos. Alternatives, vol.16(3): 377–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030437549101600306.

[66]. Vogel D, 2005, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

[67]. Warhurst A, 2005, Future roles of business in society: the expanding boundaries of corporate responsibility and a compelling case for partnership. Futures, vol.37(2–3): 151–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2004.03.033.

[68]. Williams H, 1996, The Essence of Managing Groups and Teams. London: Prentice Hall.

[69]. Žižek S, 2002, Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan Through Popular Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10 Primz Bizhub Singapore 737854

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com