Global Systems Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility
Background Introduction
The paper is an exploration of ten sources, which are to be used in a discussion of Global Systems Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility. From different publications, perspectives and interpretations, the sources are discussed and reviewed in brief on the content’s relevance and validity to the topic.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424.
In this journal review, the general and specific aspects of CSR in entrepreneurship are discussed extensively by Matten and Moon. Both writers are reputable scholars in organizational and business management. The authors present the two dimensions of CSR; namely, implicit and explicit frameworks. The two are applied in comparatively understanding corporate social responsibility at the global level. The systems approach used for explicit and implicit compliance and expectations offer a vast understanding of CSR. The interpretation of this reading is that, while the entrepreneur should work to comply with stipulated legal structures, an implicated obligation to society is vital.
What this means is that the credibility and viability of CSR and the organization behind it are mutually inclusive. When there is a structured, innovative approach to CSR, there is the double accomplishment of a competitive advantage in client loyalty and legal compliance security. Stakeholder value is also emphasized as part of the implicative aspect of CSR as interpreted by Matten and Moon.
Andersen, M., & Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 75-86.
Anderson and Skloett present the perspective of CSR in supply chain management on the global scale. The journal article can, therefore, be used to explain and argue for the organizational positive outcome about application of established Global Systems Approach to socially responsible ventures. The arguments are supported by illustrated examples, which make for a clearer internalization of the implication and explication understanding of CSR using a Global Systems Approach.
Mason, C. & Simmons, J. (2013). Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Systems Approach. J Bus Ethics, 119(1), 77-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1615-9
Mason and Simmons are reputable authorities and scholars in economics and business administration. Their book offers insights into the stakeholders’ Global Systems Approach. The key argument in the book is that there is no mutual exclusion of stakeholders’ role and Global Systems Approach in business governance. What stands out in their argument is placing the stakeholder as central to the success or failure of the CSR. The stakeholder, in this case, is viewed as the most important element as far as the business environment is concerned. Where the environment is supportive and conducive, the CSR of the business succeeds. Where the same environment (stakeholders) is not in tandem with the objectives of the business interests, the viable outcomes are not realized. The book’s arguments and ideas are vital applications in focusing on the environment and economics of the business. The relationship is about stakeholders’ role and positive impact to the society.
Rojek-Nowosielska, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility level – theoretical approach. Management, 18(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/manment-2014-0003
Rokek Nowosielska presents the theoretical approach based on corporate management in CSR level. The author forwards the perspective that decision making from the upper management is pivotal in how CSR is approached. The costs and returns, if any, are contingent on the quality of decisions and plans made in the strategizing stage of CSR. Here, the implication is that the value outcome of social responsibility activities does as much lie in the execution but rather on the planning. The theoretical approach promoted by the book can apply where there is a high or exclusive theoretical systems approach in CSR interpretation.
Sarvaiya, H. & Wu, M. (2014). An Integrated Approach for Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Sustainability. Asian Social Science, 10(17). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n17p57
Sarvaiya and Wu are experts on Asian economic and business models. The two present an interpreted systems approach to CSR. The approach is however not limited to the Asian context, but also applies to the larger global business situation. To understand the integrated approach is to have an internalized relation of all the relevant Global Systems Approach in business social responsibility. The integrated approach helps in acknowledging the burdens that exist in a business’ engagement in social corporate responsibility projects. The burdens can be economical and social as well. The discourse is applicable in discussing the integrated balance of systems approach to CSR.
Michael, P. & Kramer, M, (2006). Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 18 June 2016, from https://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-and-corporate-social-responsibility
Michael Porter is a Harvard University Professor while Kramer is a reputable international social impact consultant. The scholars have written the cited article courtesy of the TIME Magazine/Harvard Business Review. The two present an authoritative paper which explores the global perspective of corporate social responsibility. In particular, the duo focuses on the relation of a company and the CSR agenda to the society. The two argue that while companies are pressured by the accountability demanded in CSR, the responsibility should, in fact, be mutually beneficial to all stakeholders. The organization, they argue should approach the concept as an opportunity to engage the local community in far-reaching profitable relationships.
The overall idea is that organizations should not approach the idea in the generic way done by most of the companies. Toyota and Whole Foods are cited as some of the organizations that have successfully engaged with CSR as a profit making and charity effort at the same time. The source is very critical in exploring the benefits and shortcomings of CSR practice on a firm. The arguments in this trade article can be used to explore the relationships, risks, merits and role of stakeholders in the complex web of CSR on the global scale. A solid argument relating the viability and credibility of CSR can be forwarded on the basis that the interpretation of the social responsibility influences the outcome and direction of such ventures.
Leipziger, D. (2010). The corporate responsibility code book. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Leipziger has presented a general approach and summative Global Systems Approach in CSR in this reference material. The book has looked into the comprehensive factors influencing the direction, input and outcomes of CSR as a business concept. The disadvantages and associated costs are discussed comprehensively as well as their causes. From the reading, the organizational inputs and processes are explored in form of guiding principles. From such an angle, the interpretation is more of a principle and Cardinal CSR rules, which explain failures or success rates in CSR application.
Karnani, A. (2016). The Case against Corporate Social Responsibility. WSJ. Retrieved 18 June 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703338004575230112664504890
Karnani is an associate professor at the University of Michigan. His Wall Street Journal trade article offers a unique perspective on the concept of CSR. In the paper, he presents the negative and burdens of CSR in contrast to the benefits and value gained by an entity. The central argument is that, without regulation, CSR would not be practiced as enthusiastically as done by many firms. According to the author, corporate social responsibility only becomes a viable and profitable venture when done for commercial gain. In explicit terms, an organization which is registered as for-profit should ensure that there are profitable gains from any CSR investment.
Hunnicutt, S. (2009). Corporate social responsibility. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Hunnicutt’s book offers both a basic and advanced understanding of the nature of CSR in general. From the reading, one can understand the interplay of CSR, business performance, management and Global Systems Approach. It is an essential source, which assists in the approach to the wider issue of the relationship of systems approach and CSR application in business. The source is a critical application in understanding the history, nature, elements and practice of CSR in the business world.
Allen, F. (2016). Forbes Welcome. Forbes.com. Retrieved 18 June 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2011/04/26/the-five-elements-of-the-best-csr-programs/#3dfbd33933fd
The trade article is written by Frederick Allen and published on the Forbes official business section website. The author is the founder of ImpaktCopr, a leading advisory agency for businesses in Toronto. Allen is a scholar and authority in the field of business leadership and outcomes. In particular, the article presents a five element pointer which guides the success of CSR in any business. The five elements are Expert partnership, depth application, change of theory, concerted effort and business based CSR approach.
These five elements, he argues, are some of the key elements, which dictate a positive and forthcoming outcome in any business. The article can be used in showing how the concept of CSR is a multiplex idea. Such is demonstrated by showing how critical the position and input of stakeholders in CSR are in business. The performance of the enterprise investments can be attributed therefore to how third parties were involved in the planning and execution of CSR activities. The Five elements are interpreted as principles, which would guide a business person to determine whether their CSR investments are adding value or not. From the argument, the idea derived is that just like other investments; CSR has profitable advantages regarding revenue returns.
References
Allen, F. (2016). Forbes Welcome. Forbes.com. Retrieved 18 June 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2011/04/26/the-five-elements-of-the-best-csr-programs/#3dfbd33933fd
Andersen, M., & Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 75-86.
Hunnicutt, S. (2009). Corporate social responsibility. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Karnani, A. (2016). The Case against Corporate Social Responsibility. WSJ. Retrieved 18 June 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703338004575230112664504890
Leipziger, D. (2010). The corporate responsibility code book. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Mason, C. & Simmons, J. (2013). Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Systems Approach. J Bus Ethics, 119(1), 77-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1615-9
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424.
Michael, P. & Kramer, M, (2006). Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 18 June 2016, from https://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-and-corporate-social-responsibility
Rojek-Nowosielska, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility level – theoretical approach. Management, 18(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/manment-2014-0003
Sarvaiya, H. & Wu, M. (2014). An Integrated Approach for Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Sustainability. Asian Social Science, 10(17). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n17p57
