The bottom two levels are required by society and the top are thought to be expected...but with so much emphasis put on CSR are all four levels now a requirement? Go on to any company's website and you will find a whole host of initiatives, objectives and reports showing how they're going to increase sustainability, help the community and be a wonderful place to work.
"Since its founding, Google has been firmly committed to active philanthropy and to addressing the global challenges of climate change, education and poverty alleviation." (Google, 2014)
"Acting responsibly is an integral part of our brand. It strengthens the connection we have with consumers, makes our company a more desirable place to work, and helps us attract the very best and brightest to join our global cast. It builds goodwill in the communities in which we operate. All of these things contribute to The Walt Disney Company’s continued growth and success." (The Walt Disney Company, 2014)
The CSR RepTrak® 100 study in 2013 put Microsoft, Walt Disney, Google and BMW joint top when looking at CSR reputations. In fact, 73% of the 55,000 consumers surveyed are willing to recommend companies perceived to be delivering on Corporate Social Responsibility, compared to 17% when perceived to be poorly delivering.
There are many reasons to why CSR has become ever more prevalent across the world. Consumers can afford to be picky now there is an abundance of choice in the marketplace and so companies can use CSR to build up their reputation which could in turn see an increase in customers, or at least more satisfied ones. They can also attract better workers who are likely to be more committed to the workplace (Greening and Turban, 2000), in 2008 the top reason for people to perceive a company as socially responsible had been 'fair employee treatment' (Globescan, 2008). Also, by many companies it can be seen as a long-term investment, if they contribute to a safer, better-educated and more equitable community then they create an improved and stable context in which to do business (Porter and Kramer, 2006).
These are business reasons which will ultimately benefit the company and possibly initiate growth, however it is important to consider the moral reasons of CSR which are likely to have wider implications. Corporations cause pollution, just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions (Guardian, 2013), hence shouldn't they have a responsibility to solve this and prevent future damage? Many global companies are extremely powerful with vast resources, shouldn't they use their power and resources to benefit society? Companies wouldn't exist without the contributions of stakeholders such as consumers, suppliers and local communities, hence they have an obligation to consider their interests and goals and not just deliver profits to shareholders.
One of the main arguments against CSR is that it is merely a profit-maximization technique and purely carried out for reasons of self-interest (Friedman, 1970). However, although evidence does suggest that there is a positive relationship between profit and CSR, it has been almost impossible to actually prove. If you look at that relationship you then have to consider 'causality', does CSR lead to profit or does profit enable the company to come up with CSR initiatives?
Corporate social responsibility “is not a project – it’s a way of running your business”, said Jill Poet, managing director of the Organisation for Responsible Businesses (ORB).
The above quote sums up how CSR should be, it needs to be ingrained in the corporate culture, from the Board of Directors through to every single employee. Not just a project, a phase, a way of creating positive press, but instead a consistent effort to positively contribute to the wider society.
