Should Firms Go “Beyond Profits”? Milton Friedman versus Broad CSR1

When attempting to articulate the nature and scope of corporate social responsibility (CSR), a variety of opinions emerge. The primary CSR issue appears to be: Should firms go “beyond profits”? In order to address this normative question, this article will explore the theoretical underpinnings of CSR and its practical application. Part one of the paper begins by discussing common CSR definitions. Part two outlines the CSR debate in terms of the “narrow view” of CSR (as represented by Milton Friedman) versus the “broad view” (i.e., beyond profits). Part three applies both the narrow and broad approaches to CSR in analyzing two classic business and society cases: (1) the Ford Pinto; and (2) Merck's river blindness pill. The article concludes with a proposed synthesis of the CSR approaches discussed.     

Sustaining the Financial Value of Global CSR: Reconciling Corporate and Stakeholder Interests in a Less Regulated Environment

In this article we examine the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm value. This line of research is important since firms continue to invest in CSR even though past studies reveal a limited linkage between financial value and CSR. However, the business case for CSR or “doing good while making a profit,” appears to be advancing within the business ethics literature as a preferred conception of CSR. We conjecture that the greater unification and refinement of both profit maximization and stakeholder interests through corporate acts, not statements alone, will sustain the financial value of CSR in a less regulated global business environment. We study the triangle of what companies say, what companies do, and firm financial performance. We analyze Fortune 250 firms and find a positive association between what companies do based on KLD Research and Analytics, Inc. (KLD) ratings, and what companies state about ethics in their CSR statements. We then employ regression analysis and find that companies’ socially responsible acts are positively associated with overall firm value and financial performance. Yet we do not find a statistically significant association between what companies say regarding ethics in their CSR statements and their financial outcomes. These results suggest that firm value and financial performance is associated with what companies do and not what they say. Our results seem to be driven by multinational corporations (MNCs) and not by non‐MNCs. This is possibly because MNCs generally operate in a less regulated global business environment that often necessitates strong ethical corporate leadership to further stakeholder interests. Overall, these results help reconcile corporate and stakeholder objectives since evidence of a link between financial performance and doing good sustains global CSR.     

The how and why of a firm’s approach to CSR and sustainability: a case study of a large European company

This paper aims to analyse “how” and “why” a company engages in CSR and sustainability. The “how” concerns the features of the firm’s CSR and sustainability approach, defined in terms of a firm’s strategy (implemented issues, initiatives and activities) and organization (organizational structures and roles and managerial systems adopted). The “why” refers to the key determinants, both internal and external, of CSR and sustainability. Finally, how the firm’s CSR and sustainability approach evolves over time and the relation between CSR determinants in various stages of the CSR evolutionary path are also investigated. The research method is based on the longitudinal analysis of a case study concerning a large multinational company operating in the telecommunications industry in Europe. The analysis of the case study shows that sub-cultural differences in the approach to CSR and sustainability may occur across hierarchical levels and functional units. Moreover, embedding CSR and sustainability principles doesn’t follow a linear and continuous process, made by sequential stages. Indeed, it can be characterized by an up and down evolutionary path, based on different stages with a changing emphasis given to CSR and sustainability issues. Finally, we find that the firm CSR and sustainability approach is not an autonomous choice, but it is a consequence of the contingent role played by both the external and the internal drivers and by their relative importance during the company’s CSR history.     

Corporate social responsibility reporting and firm performance: evidence from China

A series of product safety and child labor scandals in the mid-2000s aroused global concerns over business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in China. The general public expects companies to be socially responsible and to look beyond the maximizing of profits. In this study, we examine the relationship between the issuance of CSR reports and performance, in terms of accounting income, market return, and growth by firms listed in China in 2008–2009. We find that the historical performance of firms has significant and positive effects on the issuance of standalone CSR reports. There is also a positive correlation between current CSR disclosures and subsequent performance. Finally, we find that corporate donations are positively associated with improved performance in the following year. Our results support the view that CSR is a useful business strategy even in a developing country such as China. We call for government authorities in emerging markets to advocate CSR practices and for the market participants to change their perception of and attitude towards CSR.     

Management-Derailment und System-Derailment

The discussion about Management Derailment (MD) has been intensifying in the past few years. We want to contribute to this discussion by considering MD in connection with System Derailment, a topic that is often the subject of debates on economic and business ethics. The current debate is characterized by the notion that in order to increase profits, companies employ more and more ethically questionable and sometimes illegal practices. In particular, we propose that socially irresponsible corporate governance corresponds with morally derailed members of the (a) top management, and (b) with mid and lower management. Specifically, we ask if moral derailment by top managers (“bad management”) can also lead to economic derailment (“mad management”), while ongoing work pressures for mid and lower managers can also be linked to their moral and individual derailment (“sad management”).     

Corporate social responsibility: a strategic and profitable response to entry?

This paper investigates whether an incumbent has an incentive to introduce corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities only as a response to entry by a competitor, i.e., the incumbent would eschew CSR if left uncontested. We assume that the entrant cannot provide CSR at least at the outset for two reasons: (1) it would not be credible due to its lack of recognition and (2) due to high fixed cost to pay e.g., for licensing. More precisely, this paper shows that monopolistic firms can have indeed the incentive to introduce CSR activities only as a response to entry. Therefore, increased competition can turn a firm “green”, providing a “win–win” for business as well as for the environment.     

Corporate Profit,Social Welfare,and the Logic of Capitalism

Business ethics scholars have proposed strategies for mitigating the ill effects brought on by a wealth maximization business strategy by urging managers to either embrace corporate social responsibility (CSR) or to manage according to stakeholder theory. In this article I argue that these strategies are often ineffective in bringing about the behavior they promote because it is antithetical to the nature and logic of capitalism. I examine the organizing principles of capitalism and the role it assigns to capitalists, and juxtapose these with the behavior prescribed by three normative frameworks: strategic management theory (SMT), the CSR initiative, and stakeholder theory. Unlike the behaviors prescribed by the CSR initiative and stakeholder management theory, the behavior prescribed by SMT is consistent with the role of capitalists as defined by the organizing principles of capitalism, and SMT's “rules” have instilled habits that have, in turn, been able to mold managers’ aspirations and purposes. CSR and stakeholder theory must not only combat the habits instilled by the entrenched SMT, they must also find some way of instilling habits that run contrary to those defined by the nature and logic of capitalism itself.     

Enhancing corporate social responsibility: Contract design under information asymmetry

We consider a two-stage supply chain in which a contract manufacturer (CM) sells products through a brand name retailer. The contract manufacturer can invest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities to improve customer perception about the firm and increase demand, while the retailer can influence the demand by exerting marketing efforts. We design optimal contracts for such a supply chain, which faces information asymmetry. The wholesale price contract was developed as the base model to derive insight into the value of information sharing. We examine the impact of CSR cost on CSR commitment and profits. We find that CM׳s CSR cost impacts the CM׳s and the retailer׳s profits differently. Under certain conditions, the CM׳s profit will increase with cost, while that of the retailer is uncertain. We also propose two-part tariff contracts for both the symmetric and asymmetric cases with the aim of maximizing the retailer׳s profit and improving CM׳s commitment to CSR. Finally, numerical experiments are conducted to illustrate and validate the proposed models and provide managerial insights.     

Is Corporate Social Responsibility in Japanese Firms at the Theoretically Derived Achievable Level? An Analysis of CSR Inefficiency Using a Stochastic Frontier Model

The purposes of this study are to investigate whether current corporate social responsibility (CSR) is at the theoretically derived achievable level (hereinafter referred to simply as achievable level), to introduce “CSR inefficiency” as the difference between actual and achievable levels of CSR, and to specify its determinants. We established that the achievable level of CSR activity is determined by a range of keiretsu group, government, sector, and resource factors, and choosing specific activities can affect the priority levels of social contributions. CSR inefficiency is affected by its own factors such as internal management, which are different from those of CSR activity. Our study suggests the importance of the differences between the achievable levels of CSR among firms. For example, firms in machinery, electrical equipment, public utilities, and service industries have greater inefficiency in environmental CSR than the other industries. Conversely, the achievable levels of construction and petroleum and gum industries for environmental CSR are higher. Service firms can achieve higher level of environmental CSR, although their emissions and wastes are not as large as those of manufacturing firms in general. In retail industries, the achievable level of environmental CSR is lowest among all industries, while those for labor issues and social contribution are as high as those of other industries. Public utilities have large CSR inefficiency compared with other industries, while construction, steel and nonferrous metals have small CSR inefficiency.     

Calling in a Debt: Government's Role in Creating the Capacity for Explicit Corporate Social Responsibility

Before the field of business and society can adequately analyze the relationship between governmental policies and corporate social responsibility (CSR), either as a reality or an ideal, it is first necessary to understand exactly how governments nurtured the development of the autonomous corporation. The roles assigned to government by the economics and management literatures—regulator, standard setter, protector, and adjudicator—ignore the crucial part played by state violence and government expenditures in the rise and sustained success of the corporate economy. An examination of the history of the American case, crucial for the development of the modern corporation as well as the “explicit” form of CSR that eventually followed it, highlights these roles: the willingness of the state to intervene with force in labor conflicts bolstered the managerial autonomy that defined the large corporation, and the way government expenditures promoted innovation and firm success. Acknowledging how corporations depended on government assistance in their development is a necessary step for both assessing the responsibilities owed stakeholders and for advancing the theoretical development of the field.     

Financial Returns of Corporate Social Responsibility,and the Moral Freedom and Responsibility of Business Leaders

A number of theorists have proposed mechanisms suggesting that corporate social responsibility produces better financial results. Others subscribe to the theory that, realistically, less ethical means are necessary. This article contains an analysis of these perspectives drawing on observations from evolutionary game theory and nature. Based on these analyses, it is concluded that the financial returns of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility (CSR and CSI) are equal on average. The explanation is that CSR and CSI aredriven to a state of equilibrium, because if one or the other were to offer higher profits, it would attract more players who would compete for the best opportunities until there was no difference in average profit. Existing empirical research generally shows a positive correlation between CSR as measured and corporate financial performance. It is argued that what is actually causing that finding is probably not CSR but management skill. More skillful managers, whether actually responsible or irresponsible, are able to obtain both higher profits and greater credit in imperfect measures of CSR. Next it is shown that this theory of equal returns implies greater moral freedom and therefore responsibility for business leaders. It is concluded that this insight can intensify the interest of decent business leaders in vigorously championing CSR.     

A Model for Managing Corporate Sustainability

The world is faced with unprecedented global economic, environmental, and social challenges. Sustainable development has emerged as an organizing principle for addressing these issues. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is seen as the business contribution to sustainable development. The article defines CSR as an organization's efforts to secure resources and legitimacy for survival or competitive advantage by managing nonmarket and nonregulated issues arising from complex social and environmental problems. Supporting this definition, the “sustainability issue management” (SIM) model is presented to help managers and researchers assess and manage CSR issues. Based on ecological economics, the tool originated from a larger study. The model is used to explain and discuss how the UK Government's National Indicator 185 (requiring carbon reporting from Local Authorities) shaped the action of a supplier to Local Authorities. The case illustrates how the SIM model can help both managers and researchers understand and manage CSR issues.     

Philosophical speculations on systems design

Belief in the value of the scientific method as a means of implementing improvement in social systems (here called “systems design”—SD) raises important philosophical questions concerning, inter alia, the meaning of “scientific method”, of “improvement”, and of social reality. One underlying problem is that of the “self reflecting paradox”; e.g. the content and validity of the scientific method can only be discovered by the application of the scientific method. Similarly, SD has its own “social reality” through which it perceives that of its client. “Improvement” is bound up with ethics but ethics does not admit the limitation of obligation to one sub-system, therefore improvement requires the recognition of sub-system linkages. Paradoxically, again, the “improver” is himself part of the total system and bears its impress. Implementation (of improvement) meets the paradox that SD on SD is needed to judge the worth of the SD proposal. The pragmatic escape from the paradox identifies SD with a heuristic role in social progress but presupposes the possibility of progress. “Implementation” secures the possibility of such progress. The second major problem is that SD requires a social reality in which individuals have visible goals; but the “inner world” of individual goals is unknown and cannot be tracked from observable responses. In any case, Kant's moral precept requires that individuals be valued as ends rather than means. Much of SD uses them as means. Though SD is and must be practised, such philosophical speculation raises SD's self knowledge and points the neat paradox of its technical precision won at the price of its fundamental woolliness.     

A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead

This study aims to trace the conceptual evolutionary path of theories on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to reflect on the implications of the development. The retrospection has revealed that the trend has been a progressive rationalization of the concept with a particular focus on tighter coupling with organizations’ financial goals. Rationalization involves two broad shifts in the conceptualization of CSR. First, in terms of the level of analysis, researchers have moved from the discussion of the macro‐social effects of CSR to organizational‐level analysis of CSR's effect on profit. Next, in terms of theoretical orientation, researchers have moved from explicitly normative and ethics‐oriented arguments to implicitly normative and performance‐oriented managerial studies. Based on the retrospection, the limitations of the current state of CSR research that places excessive emphasis on the business case for CSR are outlined, and it is suggested that future research needs to refocus on basic research in order to develop conceptual tools and theoretical mechanisms that explain changing organizational behavior from a broader societal perspective.     

考虑CSR行为意识的闭环供应链运作与协调

在考虑制造商企业社会责任(CSR)行为意识及零售商CSR投入的情形下,研究第三方回收闭环供应链的运作及协调问题。分析了制造商的CSR行为意识与零售商的CSR投入之间的交互影响关系,以及二者对闭环供应链成员及整体绩效的影响。研究表明,制造商的CSR行为意识与零售商的CSR投入均有利于降低新产品批发价格、扩大新产品市场需求、提高废旧产品回收率,且二者具有相互激励的作用。虽然制造商的CSR行为意识会导致自身纯利润减少,但却能实现更大的社会福利、改善闭环供应链其他成员及整体的绩效。“收益共享-成本共担”契约不仅可以实现闭环供应链系统协调,还能促使制造商增强CSR行为意识、零售商提高CSR投入水平。     

智联产品服务供应链研发运维多阶段联合优化与协调

在智联化和服务化背景下,智能产品服务系统成为制造企业转型升级的重要方向。产品的“智能”和“互联”特性给供应链中的产品和服务都带来了新的变化。考虑产品的“智能”和“互联”对产品、服务的需求和成本的影响,构建了供应链两阶段动态博弈模型。刻画了分散决策和集中决策下供应链的最优运作行为,基于产品收益和服务收益提出了“双元收益共享”的供应链协调机制。通过算例分析,探讨了“服务化”、“智能互联”与“双元收益共享”契约对供应链利润的影响。研究表明,智联产品供应链中融入智能服务,不总是能增加供应链利润,存在“服务化悖论”;当产品智联化后,智能互联特性加强了产品与服务的融合,使供应链各方的利润都有较大提高;“双元收益共享”契约不仅能实现供应链Pareto改进,还能提高消费者剩余。     

企业社会责任与企业伦理关系分析

企业社会责任与企业伦理是何关系既是一个理论问题,也是一个现实问题。跳出仅仅从概念视角分析文献中实际采用的定义的局限,提出“3+2”的分析框架,即从三个视角(基本概念、学科领域和社会运动)、两个层面(现实层面和理论层面)分析企业社会责任和企业伦理的关系。分析表明:企业社会责任概念与企业伦理概念之间的关系,不同于企业社会责任领域与企业伦理领域之间的关系,也不同于企业社会责任运动与企业伦理运动之间的关系;同样是企业社会责任和企业伦理概念之间、领域之间和运动之间的关系,现实层面的关系和理论层面的关系也有差异;企业社会责任和企业伦理既非互不相干,亦非完全等同,也不是简单的一个包含另一个的关系,而是既有区别,又有联系的关系。     

CSR投入对闭环供应链定价与协调决策的影响

研究了供应链成员的社会责任（CSR）投入行为对闭环供应链决策的影响。考虑了闭环供应链中以下四种不同的CSR投入方式：（1）无CSR投入;（2）制造商投入CSR;（3）零售商投入CSR;（4）制造商和零售商同时投入CSR。通过对比不同模型的均衡决策和利润,发现制造商和零售商同时进行CSR投入的方式对闭环供应链决策成员和系统均最有利,而零售商投入CSR的方式优于制造商投入CSR方式。其次,以集中化决策模型的最优结果为基准,探讨了不同CSR投入方式下分散化闭环供应链系统的协调机制设计问题。结果表明：两部定价契约能有效实现CSR约束的闭环供应链的协调;且在制造商与零售商同时投入CSR决策情形,契约中制造商的议价能力最弱,零售商的议价能力最强。最后,通过算例分析了模型中关键参数对闭环供应链均衡决策与利润的影响,并进一步对闭环供应链协调的性能进行了分析。