Corporate social responsibility in a global context - a new free download

The new edition of our textbook on CSR, Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context, written with our colleague Laura Spence, hit the shelves a few weeks ago - just in time for the new academic year. And we're pleased to see that it's flying off those shelves pretty fast too. In its first month alone, the book sold almost a 1000 copies, which is pretty good going - and a big uptick on like-for-like sales from last time around.

The second edition is quite a change from the first. It's still based around readings of classic and recent articles on CSR, but we've updated more than half of these, written three brand new cases, and overall it has a much more textbook-like feel to it. Along with Routledge, the publishers. we've worked hard at refreshing the design and contents to make the text much more user friendly, more lively and engaging, and with a great new companion website to help students and instructors make the most of the book. This includes a whole bunch of annotated links to CSR in practice which help readers see where theory in the book turns into practice as well as links to career resources for budding CSR professionals. Of course, there are also all the usual instructor resources like powerpoint slides and teaching notes, as well as a cool new "Case Club" which has suggested cases for each of the chapters in the book. It really is as close to the complete package for a CSR course kit as we could get it.

To mark the launch of the book, we are making available, completely free, a download of the first chapter, "Corporate social responsibility: in a global context", over at the Social Science Research Network. This is the exact same version as you'll find in the book, downloadable as a pdf. You don't need to sign in, register, or anything. Just go to the right page and click "Download This Paper". It's that simple.

The chapter is a good basic CSR 101 for anyone trying to get their head's around the subject. Among other things, it includes discussion on the nature and definition of CSR, and its emergence in different national contexts (including developing and transitional economies) and even different organizational contexts (such as small and large firms, and public, private and nonprofit organizations). As with the previous edition, although we discuss a whole bunch of different definitions of CSR, we don't introduce a new one. Instead we try and capture what is common across CSR definitions in order to determine the main unique features of the phenomenon. We call these the six core characteristics of CSR, which are shown in the Figure below.

Six core characteristics of CSR

Reproduced from Crane, A., Matten, D., and Spence, L.J. (2013), "Corporate social responsibility: in a global context." In Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L.J. (eds), Corporate social responsibility: readings and cases in a global context, Abingdon: Routledge (p. 9).

As we are often heard remarking, CSR is a field of "conceptual anarchy". Hopefully by reading the introduction, and who knows, maybe reading more of the book in class, at the library, or just for your own enjoyment and education, we can hopefully help you navigate through some of the confusion to reach a clearer, if no less complex, understanding of a sometimes elusive idea.

See also: Our top 10 tips for teaching CSR

Should the UN Global Compact have sharper teeth?

Do those teeth need sharpening? Georg Kell, Executive Director of the UN Global Compact. 

The emergence of multi-stakeholder initiatives and voluntary corporate accountability programs for business have become some of the most interesting aspects of the CSR debate over the past decade or so. The largest of these in terms of company participation is the UN Global Compact, which now has some 10,000 participants, including over 7,000 businesses in 145 countries. By any account, that's a huge number. It's also a huge experiment given that there's never been anything quite like it before or since.

A few years ago we were the official bloggers of the Global Compact's 10 year anniversary, "Leaders Summit" which took place in New York in 2010. At that time we made various comments on the successes, failures and future challenges of the compact. As geeky academics, we are now eagerly awaiting the publication of the special issue of the journal Business & Society (which we are on the board of), entitled "The UN Global Compact: Retrospect and Prospect", edited by our friends and colleagues Andreas Rasche, Sandra Waddock and Malcolm McIntosh. They've put together a nice collection of academic papers on the subject, including a terrific introduction from the editors, and the special issue really demonstrates how seriously the academic community is taking the Global Compact.

Some of the big questions for researchers interested in the Compact - and indeed for many in the practitioner community - are about its governance and effectiveness. Does membership have an effect of corporate social performance? What governance system would be most effective to ensure corporate accountability? And perhaps the biggest question of them all - should the compact, as its critics maintain, have more regulatory power to discipline companies that don't live up to its principles, or is it more important to have a low bar for participation so as to engage the maximum amount of companies?

Answers to these questions are slowly beginning to emerge from the research community. Over at the aptly named Global Compact Critics website, a colleague of ours at the University of Zurich, Patrick Haack, has written a guest blog based on his research that reaches a conclusion which the compact critics love to hate. Yes, you guessed it, Haack recommends that rather than kicking out any "bad apples" in the compact, the UN should keep them in. Paradoxically, this is the way to build legitimacy according to Haack: “a “soft” and consensual approach is in the best interest of the Global Compact and transnational governance more generally... "keeping bad apples” and providing them with time and resources to overcome organizational barriers may prove more fruitful than unconditional punishment."

Provocative stuff. Unsurprisingly, the critics have hit back - in the form of a post from Mariëtte van Huijstee from SOMO, the organization behind the Global Compact Critics website. "By keeping bad apples in at all times," she argues, "the initiative loses its legitimacy and appeal for other companies in the long run." This is no arcane academic argument; it goes to the heart of how to build an effective mechanism for corporate accountability and ensure that companies act in the best interests of society.  But the answers are not obvious and the need for good research is critical.Some of what has emerged so far has shown that the diffusion of the Compact has been dampened by the effect of critical NGOs who have voiced concerned over its "weak" inclusive approach - meaning that companies from countries with strong networks of international NGOs have been less likely to sign up than those from countries outside of these networks. This helps to explain why the Compact has been particularly successful at getting traction in developing countries, even whilst developed country NGO criticize its lack of teeth.

So the debate will no doubt rage on. But soon, we hope, we'll have the research to show what the real advantages and disadvantages are of the Compact - and whether its weakness is, as Haack contests, one of its main strengths.

Photo by djevents. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Can the Canadian oil sands really be an 'ethical' source of energy?

The new year has got off to a bang in Canada with the new Environment Minister Peter Kent coming out of his corner fighting. According to Kent, the Albertan oil sands are not the environmental catastrophe we all thought they were. In fact, as he says, the oil sands are "an ethical source of energy". Yes, that's right. Alberta is the new home of ethical oil.  Oh boy, that's going to need some explaining.

Now, before you slam your head into the computer screen in disbelief, let's take a closer look at this claim and put it in a little bit of context. Kent's basic point is that because the oil sands are in Canada, they are properly and democratically regulated, they do not fall foul of corruption and abuses common in oil rich countries - and the proceeds don't go into funding terrorism. Compare that to the other states in the top 10 countries by proven oil reserves and you can see that he might have a point. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, UAE, Russia, Libya, and Nigeria - hardly a list of ethical hotspots it has to be said. As Kent puts it, "[Oil sands oil] is a regulated product in an energy superpower democracy... The profits from this oil are not used in undemocratic or unethical ways. The proceeds are used to better society in the great Canadian democracy."

OK, so let's not get into a debate about just how "great" the Canadian democracy is. After all this is a country that, under the current Government, has regularly taken to shutting down Parliament when things get a bit dicey. But against the rest of the countries with big oil reserves, it still comes up looking pretty good by comparison. This is important for potential buyers of oil sands oil, especially the US which is concerned with global energy security, and is looking to wean itself off its dependence on oil imports from countries that it would rather not have to go to war with again. In fact, Kent's ethical makeover of the oil sands is all part of the major charm offensive that the Canadian government is pursuing to bolster its reputation in the US and elsewhere where climate concerns have started making Canadian oil distinctly unpopular in recent years.

In this context Kent is right to promote some of the virtues of the oil sands. All energy sources have their positives and negatives - yet the oil sands has become chiefly known only for its social and environmental downside. So a bit of rebalancing of the ethical equation is not inappropriate. But claiming any source of non-renewable energy is "ethical" and especially one that is fraught with such problems as oil sands oil, is not too helpful in advancing the debate in a meaningful way. Such claims may get media attention but they also infuriate critics and simply serve to entrench existing antagonisms. Climate activists are likely to target the oil sands even harder now that the Canadian government is drawing out the battle lines in this way. Greenpeace Canada for example had already started campaigning on a 'Separate oil from state' platform including an anonymous leak site for inside tip-offs about government efforts to promote the oil sands. This is all part of a concerted NGO response to what  the Climate Action Network regards as, "federal officials ... systematically trying to kill clean energy and climate change policies in other countries in order to promote the interests of oil companies."

Far better it would have been then for Kent to acknowledge the shortcomings of the oil sands along with proclaiming their virtues. Any freshman ethics student knows that a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis of the ethics of different energy sources has to take into account more than just one factor. Country of origin is just one of a whole range of relevant issues. There is no way that the tar sands can be regarded as an ethical source of oil based on one factor alone. But country of origin "benefits" can be traded off with climate change "costs" if you subscribe to a utilitarian mode of thinking. However, a myopic, one-sided piece of government propaganda doesn't help anyone ... especially when it is proclaiming the virtues of "the great Canadian democracy".

Photo copyright Greenpeace. 

Climate change and the bottom line ... even in Canada?

Canada is no frontrunner in tackling climate change. In fact, in many respects, it is quite the reverse. So we were pleased to see the release of WWF Canada's report "Rethink Business How Addressing Climate Change Can Improve The Bottom Line" which looks at what some of the country's leading companies are doing to address climate change in their organizations.In fact we were so pleased that Andy agreed to write the forword for the report. Here's a sample of what he says:

"For Canadian business, the threat of climate change looms large. Nonetheless, despite its reputation as a clean, eco-loving country of verdant forestsand sparkling rivers, Canada remains a major laggard in climate protection. According to official statistics, it has one of the highest rates of per capita CO2 emissions of any country in the world. The conditions for a major change in this situation are hardly propitious either. The  economy is wedded to fossil fuels, and the federal government has been reluctant to tackle the problem of climate change through national regulation. It is clear that we need to look elsewhere for meaningful change.

Hotels, soft drinks, information technology, and paper – these might not be the obvious places to look for leadership in climate solutions in the country. However, this report demonstrates that these are indeed some of the industries where a quiet Canadian revolution is beginning to take shape. Each of the companies featured here – Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, The Coca-Cola Company, Hewlett-Packard Canada, and Catalyst Paper – have demonstrated a willingness to take a step beyond their industry rivals. They have all made an  impressive commitment to reduce absolute levels of greenhouse gas emissions. And they have each  demonstrated in their own way that doing so can also make good commercial sense. Their performance is far from perfect. But these companies can all point to significant progress that sets a benchmark for others to follow."

So the bottom line is that some of these leaders are doing some great stuff .... but there's still a long, long way to go, especially considering that these are in front of many of their competitors. If you want to read more about what these companies have done and the challenges they've faced, the whole report is downloadable for free, or you can also just download excerpts. One of the most interesting aspects for us though is that the report is based on a business collaboration implemented by WWF called Climate Savers that seeks to combine the efforts of the NGO and its corporate members to achieve meaninful carbon reductions. As Andy says in the foreword:

"The decision to take a lead on climate change is not taken lightly. WWF’s Climate Savers program, though, is a great example of what can be achieved when businesses and non-profit organizations decide to work together to achieve common goals. Such partnerships are tough to get right. Different priorities, a clash of  values, alternative ways of seeing the world: these can all derail the best-laid plans for collaboration. But  WWF Climate Savers program works because it offers a framework for action that is animated by a set of clearly articulated goals....The Climate Savers program is not just about targets, though. What Climate Savers does is provide support, advice, evaluation, and perhaps most importantly, a forum for the exchange of ideas and the communication of progress, that enables the program participants to better achieve
their goals."

We're not saying it's a panacea for tackling climate change, but challenges this big require collaborative action. And they demand a willingness to open up. And that's exactly what the Climate Savers initiative gets business in the habit of doing. It's a pity that the only way they seem able to do this is by appealing to business self-interest (as in "how addressing climate change can improve the bottom line"), but sure, there is a necessity for voluntary climate action to make some kind of commercial sense ... its just not the whole story. But if you're reading a blog about corporate responsibility, you probably didn't need us totell you that.

Bad habits die hard

It is amazing with how little social responsibility some companies manage to keep up a reasonably good image. BP is one such example. A major contributor to climate change, with recent scandals and disasters in Texas and Alaska – it nevertheless still maintains this cosy, green, ‘we’ve-made-a-start’ image.

There are also examples for the opposite. Nestlé is a case in point. Yes, they had some major blunders in the past about the marketing of their infant formula. But by and large, the company is nowhere up there with the oil, tobacco or car industries; no large scale environmental disasters, no deliberate misinformation of the public and no negligent acquiescence in killing their customers. Nestlé’s products are by and large OK; yes, some of them, such as KitKat might not be the healthiest, but by and large Nestlé is a food company who even amongst its peers (such as McDonalds, Cadburys or other food companies) does not look like the worst villain.

Despite all that, Nestlé has ‘skillfully’ managed to be one of the most vigorously criticized companies; in fact they hold the record of the most boycotted one. The latest blunder of the Swiss multi reads a bit like a piece out of a cheap spy novel: allegedly, according to Swiss television, Nestlé has hired the private security firm Securitas to spy on the Lausanne chapter (next door to Nestlé’s HQ in Vevey) of the NGO Attac. Main point of interest for Nestlé allegedly was a book the group was writing about the company.

It is amazing how illiterate in an ethical sense a company with this legacy can be. It is even more bizarre considering that under its current CEO Brabeck-Letmathe Nestlé has made considerable inroads into systematically addressing CSR. Yet, the deeper DNA of the corporate culture seems more stubborn than – maybe ephemeral – CSR fashions dictated from the top floors. It obviously crossed nobody’s mind at Nestlé, that some companies have actually started to talk to their ‘adversaries’ – stakeholder dialogue we call this.

It might be interesting to speculate about the reasons why Nestlé is so clumsy in addressing its stakeholders. We won’t get into that here. Sure to say though, Nestlé still has more of a ‘Feindbild’, a stereotype of an enemy, when they think about their stakeholders…