Einde inhoudsopgave
Corporate Social Responsibility (IVOR nr. 77) 2010/1.2.4
1.2.4 Pros and cons?
Mr. T.E. Lambooy, datum 17-11-2010
- Datum
17-11-2010
- Auteur
Mr. T.E. Lambooy
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS370624:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
See e.g. the websites of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Dutch Ministry for Economic Affairs, the Global Reporting Initiative, and numerous other organisations and networks, which indicate that they adhere to CSR and wish to promote it. Scientists' opinions can also be found for and against, i.e. experts from many disciplines.
M.E. Porter and M.R. Kramer, 'Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility',inHarvard Business Review, December 2006, p. 3, at: http://www.exed.hbs.edu/assets/strategy-society.pdf, visited on 30 May 2010.
Ibidem, pp. 3-16.
See e.g. M.E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (The Free Press: New York, 1985); Van Tulder and Van der Zwart (note 14 supra).
C. Villiers, ' Enforcement of CSR standards with incentives or sanctions?' Paper presented at HiiL Law of the Future Conference: Globalisation, the Nation-State and Private Actors: Rethinking Public-Private Cooperation in Shaping Law and Governance, (The Hague, 8 and 9 October 2009). Paper and Conference Report available at www.hill.org, accessed on 31 March 2010.
J. Van Oosterhout, P.P.M.A.R. Heugens, ' Much Ado about Nothing: A Conceptual Critique of CSR', Erasmus University Rotterdam - School of Management, 14 August 2006, last revised on 18 August 2009, ERIM Report Series Reference No. ERS-2006-040-ORG.
Donald Kalff, Modern kapitalisme. Alternatieve grondslagen voor grote ondernemingen (e-book, Business Contact, 2009). He argues that the economic value should be positioned in the middle because it constitutes a clear way of measuring the success of the management and entrepreneurship of large companies. At the same time, he does include a long-term perspective in the calculation method for determining the economic value of a company.
Friends of the Earth, 'Greenwash Oscars', News item, 23 Augustus 2002. It stated: 'Oil companies - Shell, BP and Esso (Exxon Mobil) - swept the Greenwash Academy Awards beating biotech giants - Monsanto, Novartis and Aventis - in a glittering award ceremony'; see http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/economy/news/earth_summit_23_august.html, accessed on 30 May 2010. R. Mcguinness, World: Friends of the Earth fire back at corporate ' greenwashing'', Metro World News, 6 April 2010, at http://www.corpwatch.org/ article.php?id=15563, accessed on 30 May 2010, states: 'Paul de Clerk, Coordinator of the Corporate Campaign at Friends of the Earth International, describes greenwashing as the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly''.
The practice of CSR is subject to much debate and criticism. Proponents argue that there is a strong business case for CSR, in that companies benefit in multiple ways by operating with a perspective that is broader and lasts longer than their own immediate, short-term profits.1 It has been stated that it is difficult to distinguish between CSR and good business practice, as CSR's holistic approach aligns with building and safeguarding corporate reputation for the future. Responsible business practice could help protect a company from consumer boycotts. A deeper perspective is offered by the American professor Michael Porter and the academic fellow and practitioner Mark Kramer. Their view is:
CSR has emerged as an inescapable priority for business leaders in every country. Many companies have already done much to improve the social and environmental consequences of their activities, yet these efforts have not been nearly as productive as they could be - for two reasons. First, they pit business against society, when clearly the two are interdependent. Second, they pressure companies to think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways instead of in the way most appropriate to each firm's strategy. The fact is, the prevailing approaches to CSR are so fragmented and so disconnected from business and strategy as to obscure many of the greatest opportunities for companies to benefit society. If, instead, corporations were to analyze their prospects for social responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their core business choices, they would discover that CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed - it can be a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage.
And: "When looked at [it] strategically, corporate social responsibility can become a source of tremendous social progress, as the business applies its considerable resources, expertise, and insights to activities that benefit society".2 The frameworks to which Porter refers are in the first place business models, but he also mentions legal and semi-legal frameworks, amongst which are corporate governance, CSR reporting, and the rating and ranking of companies.3 The focal point of his studies, and of many other studies on CSR, is the business strategy perspective.4
By contrast, critics argue that CSR bears no value because it cannot be legally enforced. In a more subtle way, others state that without a regulatory approach, CSR will not have sufficient impact on solving the problems to the solution of which it is expected to contribute.5 The Dutch Professor Oosterhout also belongs to the criticasters of CSR. He claims:6
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a nominal term clearly resonates with scholars and practitioners alike. As a scientific concept, however, it has often been criticized for its lack of definitional precision and poor measurement. [... ] The upshot of this analysis is that since the CSR concept adds nothing of value to existing frameworks in the field of management and organisation, such as the economizing and legitimizing perspectives, it is best to discard it altogether.
Generally, criticasters have also contended that CSR distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses.7 From a different perspective, CSR has been criticised as being nothing more than superficial window-dressing. Along those lines, as one of the downsides, it has been asserted that CSR could become the victim of its own popularity. For example, the campaign group Friends of the Earth sees some companies' interest in CSR as a cynical ' PR exercise'.8 Hence, in their view, ' greenwashing'- self-styled ethical brands -could suffer a backlash from their own CSR spin. Another critical argument often disseminated is that CSR is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations.
Clearly, the CSR phenomenon has attracted strong positive and negative opinions from both scientists and society. On the one hand, the author agrees with the criticisms conversed; they provide a realistic view and certainly contain an element of truth. However, as will be demonstrated throughout this study, she also agrees with the view of Porter and Kramer. If businesses were to use the same frameworks that guide their core business, CSR could be effectively incorporated into the core operations and could become a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage for business, as well as a source of social progress. As will be explained infra, the author has chosen to direct her research towards legal and semi-legal frameworks that support and guide business organisations and to examine how these frameworks interact with CSR.