In recent years, the corporate world
has given increasing attention to the topic of Corporate Social Responsibility
(abbreviated in CSR, Responsabilità
Sociale d’Impresa in Italian) although there is not much consensus about
what it is and when business can be considered ‘responsible’. Indeed, many
different conceptions of what CSR is and what it is for exist.
In Europe it seems it is more spread
the CSR label, although in the US terms like ‘Corporate Citizenship’ and ‘Corporate
Sustainability’ are quite common; other common expressions are ‘Community
Management’ or ‘Stakeholder Engagement’. As noted by many scholars, also in the
academic literature parallel and sometimes confusing universe exist. For the
sake of simplicity, I adopt here CSR as the umbrella term to describe corporate
attempts to institutionalize ethics. More in general, CSR refer to all the corporate
actions that are not directly linked to profit-making, but directed to enhance
the social and environmental performance of the firm (the concept of the triple
bottom line, social and environmental along with economic, is here recalled).
Beyond definitional issues, this
richness of meanings reveals the persistence of different perspectives around
CSR. That is why critical authors have contested it as a ‘fuzzy concept’, as to
say it is just a rhetorical move to mask all the companies’ wrongdoings or, in
the best case, to sell better their products. In the words of Boltanski and Chiapello,
CSR is a clear example of the capacity of the new spirit of capitalism to
absorb critics and reformulate them in a profitable way.
No doubt the ambiguity that
surrounds the term casts serious shadows on the real intentions and effects of
this new form of corporate initiative. And no doubt many companies are ready to
exploit the beneficial potential of CSR advert campaigns to greenwash their public
image and products. However, this clear-cutting critical vision leaves little
space for doubt and human initiative.
In addition to a new form of
corporate discourse and marketing tool, CSR also represents a new area of
managerial intervention. In organizations there is currently a growth of
department and managerial roles dedicated to CSR and, increasingly, business
students all around the world chose to specialize in this emergent area. During
my research activity, I had several times the occasion to interview the ‘professionals
of CSR’ and what I derived is a sense of people truly committed to their work,
that really believe in the good intentions and tools of CSR. What I then wonder
is: is it right to disregard all this good will and changing potential as
‘corporate bullshitting’? Or would be better to leverage on it and try to build
different organizations and work environments?
CSR represents nowadays what semiologists
would call a ‘floating signifier’, an expression that everyone recall without
knowing its precise meaning. There is still too much ambiguity around it and
multiplicity of perspectives, but this ambiguity leaves some room for manoeuvre.
What CSR is and what it is for, is still
a work in progress. In the years coming many different actors, organizations
and institutions will concur to the construction and definition of this area.
It is the responsibility of all those involved, academicians drawing from
various traditions, practitioners, business persons, management educators and
of course policy makers, to make CSR effective and relevant to transform
business organizations, and not just the last managerial fad.
Some Sources:
-about the story of
CSR, see Carroll (2008). "A History of Corporate Social Responsibility:
Concepts and Practices." In The
Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University
Press,19-46.
-about the definition, see Dalsrud (2008). "How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13.
-about the definition, see Dalsrud (2008). "How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13.
-a recent
literature review is Aguinis and Glavas (2012). “What we know and don’t know
about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda”. In Journal of Management, 38 (4), 932-968.
-many critical
contributions are included in the special issue on CSR by Organization. The interdisciplinary journal of organization, theory and
society (2013, number 20, issue 3).
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento