“Implicit” and “Explicit” Csr: a Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporations are encouraged to conduct their activities in an ethically responsible manner, however neither the corporate world nor academia has produced a single – all encompassing definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The basic problem is that there are too many self-serving definitions that often lean toward the specific interests of the entities involved (Van Marrewijk, 2003). There has even been a quantitative study conducted on the many definitions of the term (Dahlsrud, 2006).

On the other side, as the legal personality of the corporations evolved in the 1800s, enterprises were no longer responsible for serving the public interest. Consequently, any social welfare was symbolic and procured from the economic function of organizations (Banerjee, 2008). Furthermore, it seems that corporations are using CSR strategies as a window to present favorable images and obtain economic benefits. Historically the relationship between revenues and investment in CSR programs is a controversial issue. Furthermore, the power of the economic CSR rhetoric lies in the ability to validate particular ideologies to consolidate the power of larger corporations (Banerjee,

The term ‘corporate social responsibility’ is still in popular use, even though competing, complementary and overlapping concepts such as corporate citizenship, business ethics, stakeholder management and sustainability are all vying to become the most accepted and widespread descriptor of the field. At the same time, the concept of corporate social performance (CSP) has become an established umbrella term which embraces both the descriptive and normative aspects of the field, as well as placing an emphasis on all that firms are achieving or accomplishing in the realm of social responsibility policies, practices and results. In the final analysis, however, all these concepts are related, in that they are integrated by key, underlying themes such as value, balance and accountability (Schwartz and Carroll 2008), and CSR remains a dominant, if not exclusive, term in the academic literature and in business practice. Just to illustrate how the concept is always evolving, CSR International, a non-profit organization, announced in 2009 the birth celebration of CSR International, an exciting new organization supporting the transition from what it called the ‘old CSR’ (Corporate Social Responsibility) or CSR 1.0 to the ‘new CSR’ (Corporate Sustainability & Responsibility) or CSR 2.0. Whether CSR 2.0 turns out to be substantially different

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is something that affects all companies and should be an active factor in the company’s decision making. It is something all corporations need to care about. CSR is when business’ or corporations take part in an initiative or campaign for a cause that will benefit society and/or in some way make the world a better place (Taylor, 2015). Initially, Corporate Social Responsibility started to take shape around the 1950’s, but some say that it dates all the way back to the 1800s, the idea of CSR was seen (Carroll, 2007). One may think that because it is dated so long ago, it doesn’t have an important impact today nevertheless, it is proven that Corporate Social Responsibility is a pathway for entities to self benefit as they are in the process of benefitting society.

In the Canadian economy, corporate social responsibility is a significant aspect of most business transactions. This is due to the importance placed upon it by society, in particular the demands of Canadian citizens. In every economy around the world, these demands are different and thus reflected in the creation of government policies that require corporate social responsibility to be considered. It is not only these policies, but the consumer demands for CSR that determine the significance of CSR within companies. Therefore, although a great importance is placed upon CSR in Canada, especially here at Macewan, this is not always the case in other locations around the world.

In this article, “The Truth About CSR,” authors Rangan, Chase and Karim stress the importance in aligning a company’s social and environmental activities with its business purpose and values (Rangan, Chase, & Karim, 2015, 41). Outcomes of CSR programs should be a “spillover” and not a primary focus of a business, expressing concern towards social responsibility and corporations failing to contribute to society accordingly (Rangan, Chase, Karim, 2015, 42). There is a great deal of importance in companies refocusing their CSR activities on a primary goal and in providing an organized process for bringing consistency and discipline to CSR strategies (42). Rangan, Chase and Karim want corporations to understand why it is important for them to evaluate their CSR activities and refocus them towards the goal of reinforcing the firm’s societal and environmental actions, while also ensuring their actions add to the overall purpose and values of the corporation. According to the authors, even though

Corporate Social Responsibility (C.S.R.) is a theory practiced in the business sphere since fifty years. It refers to the duty of business organizations to adopt certain activities that will benefit the society in some way. Charity, health-awareness campaigns are few examples that a business undertakes to fulfil its objectives of C.S.R. According to this ideal, it is important for various corporations today to undertake such social activities, apart from merely focusing on their objective of profit maximization. But, is it an obligation that is most important than other objectives of business? This thought further leads us to another significant question – In contemporary settings, should corporations be guided by the concept of C.S.R.?

Both the definitions given highlight the “voluntary” part of the actions taken by firms, those which go beyond law requirements, and from this starting point Matten and Moon (Matten & Moon 2008a) define two types of CSR, “implicit” and “explicit”. Implicit CSR reflects the actions taken by the firms to respond to formal and informal institutions for society’s interest, and consists of values, norms, and rules which result in requirements for corporations. Explicit CSR describes corporate activities that assume responsibility for the interests of society. They normally consist of voluntary programs and strategies by corporations which combine social and business value and address issues perceived as being part of the social responsibility of the company, often in response to local communities or Non-Governmental Organizations’ pressures (NGO) (Matten & Moon 2008b).

In today’s modern business world, commerce implements operation, drive and manner notions with endorsement and adoption of corporate social responsibility as a matter of course (David Henderson 2004). The stakeholder groups, for instance, governments, communities, suppliers, employees, customers and stockholders persistently claim administrators to dedicate capitals to corporate social responsibility (McWilliams and Siegel 2001, 117). Despite the fact, strategic corporate social responsibility is far more selective on being a standing corporation rate citizen and also addressing the social issues that the corporate creates (Micheal E. Porter and

Furthermore, Walmart isn’t alone in its international influence and there are several other companies that have resources greater than many countries and there is little evidence that might suggest that this is a fleeting position in global affairs. Thus, given the influence of the corporate form in the modern international economic system, one of the most interesting ethical developments is the establishment of the discipline of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This analysis will consider how the CSR model fits with a broader global effort to

Through globalization the gap between the rich and poor has increased, while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This can be one of the many reasons why companies choose to be more social responsible as CSR aims to reduce conflicts between stakeholders. Although, individuals are aware that more companies are producing social responsible goods, companies can benefit from CSR practices in different ways. When companies decide to be socially and environmentally active, not only will the society and the environment benefit from the companies ethical practices, but they can also differentiate themselves in today's competitive market.

As a result, 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

It is a central tenet of advocates of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) that corporations receive a social sanction from society that requires that they, in return, contribute to the growth and development of that society. There is little argument as to the existence of this sanction but considerable debate as to whether it requires more of the corporation than the obvious: enhancing the society by creating and delivering products and services consumers want, providing employment and career opportunities for employees, developing markets for suppliers, and paying taxes to governments and returns to shareholders and other claimants on the rents generated by the corporation. For those with a narrow conception

Events in resent history have made a clear statement to the executives of the world that Globalization and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are tightly linked in projecting a positive brand image. Most of the negative publicity surrounding the globalization debate is directed at one key area, the perceived lack of corporate social responsibility in the business culture of the developed world. The European Commission defines Corporate Social Responsibility as, “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis."(European) As the heat is turned up on firms,

One of the examples of how attitude towards CSR by multinational corporations has changed was raised by Lee, when he reviewed corporate governance codes and practices of Ford . He used two instances in the history of corporate actions of Ford with an interval of 80 years in between them. Keeping in mind the abovementioned Clark’s remarks on corporate accountability back in 1916, this becomes even more educational, as it shows a dramatic change in shareholders’ perception of their business as a service to the broader society.