Article

Corporate Social Responsibility: Drei zentrale Konfliktlinien bei der Umsetzung unternehmerischer Verantwortung

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Unternehmen werden zusehends häufiger und von unterschiedlichen Akteuren angemahnt, soziale Verantwortung zu übernehmen. Waren es am Anfang hauptsächlich Nichtregierungsorganisationen, die ein solches Engagement einforderten, so gibt es inzwischen normierte Berichtspflichten und somit Handlungszwänge für die Unternehmen auf diese Anforderungen einzugehen, häufig zusammengefasst unter dem Begriff Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Die Umsetzung solcher Maßnahmen kann jedoch auch in Konflikt mit unternehmerischer Profitgenerierung, dem kapitalistischen Wachstumsimperativ und dem Wert der Demokratie stehen. Diese drei Konfliktlinien werden in diesem Aufsatz diskutiert.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Chapter
Dieser Beitrag geht am Beispiel des aktuellen Purpose-Marketings der Frage nach, ob es für Unternehmen sinnvoll ist, öffentlich mit Sinn zu werben. Bei dieser Art des Marketings wird nicht nur vom Konsumenten eine bestimmte Werthaltung (Nachhaltigkeit, Glaubwürdigkeit, Anstand etc.) erwartet, sondern man reklamiert, selbst diese Werte aus innerem Antrieb heraus zu vertreten und auch zu leben. Dies tun die Unternehmen, so die These von Jo Reichertz, um eine vertrauenserweckende Firmenidentität und auf diesem Wege einen Marktvorteil gegenüber Konkurrenten zu erlangen. Konnte diese Marketingstrategie in den 1990er Jahren noch gewisse Erfolge verbuchen, so kann angesichts des offensichtlichen Fehlverhaltens vieler großer Unternehmen seit den 2010er Jahren diese Art des Marketings immer weniger Kommunikationsmacht entfalten. Die Kunden betrachten moralisch aufgeladene Marketingstrategien nämlich zunehmend als Fassadenkommunikation, als besondere Form von Fake News.
Article
Full-text available
In this article I examine corporate social reporting as a form of New Governance regulation termed "democratic experimentalism." Due to the challenges of regulating the behavior of corporations on issues related to sustainable economic development, New Governance regulation-which has a focus on decentralized, participatory, problem-solving-based approaches to regulation-is presented as an option to traditional command-and-control regulation. By examining the role of social reporting under a New Governance approach, I set out three necessary requirements for social reporting to be effective: disclosure, dialogue with stakeholders, and the moral development of the corporation. I then assess current social reporting practices against these requirements and find significant problems. In response, I propose one option for solving those problems, and encourage future researchers to consider the demands of these three requirements and the possible trade-offs between them when attempting to find ways to improve social reporting practices.
Article
Full-text available
Der Text "Markt, Gemeinschaft, Organisation …" beschäftigt sich mit den je spezifischen Eigenlogiken der drei prominenten Koordinationsmechanismen. Die Fokussierung auf ihre je besonderen Leistungsmaxima und inhärenten Risiken deutet auf Korrekturbedarf an verbreiteten Zuschreibungen hin. So ist z.B. der Marktmechanismus keineswegs als Garant maximaler Effizienz, sondern vor allem als wirksamster Innovationsstimulus zu identifizieren. Was den mancherorts hochgeschätzten Vertrauensgenerator Gemeinschaft betrifft, wird nicht selten dessen inhärente Tendenz zur kognitiven Schließung, d. h. zur fatalen Fehlwahrnehmung der Umwelt, ignoriert. Der Aufsatz mündet in dem Plädoyer, die Vorstellung von „reinen“ Koordinationsmechanismen aufzugeben und von der realweltlichen Kombination mehrerer Mechanismen unter dem Etikett eines einzelnen Mechanismus als Namensgeber und Rückfallregel auszugehen.
Article
Full-text available
In this article I critically analyze contemporary discourses of corporate social responsibility and related discourses of sustainability and corporate citizenship. I argue that despite their emancipatory rhetoric, discourses of corporate citizenship, social responsibility and sustainability are defined by narrow business interests and serve to curtail interests of external stakeholders. I provide an alternate perspective, one that views discourses of corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability as ideological movements that are intended to legitimize and consolidate the power of large corporations. I also problematize the popular notion of organizational `stakeholders'. I argue that stakeholder theory of the firm represents a form of stakeholder colonialism that serves to regulate the behavior of stakeholders. I conclude by discussing implications for critical management studies.
Article
Full-text available
Deliberative democracy is a revolutionary political ideal that requires fundamental changes in political institutions, bases of collective decision making, and the distribution of resources. Perhaps because of its revolutionary character, accounts of deliberation in political theory thus far have offered little guidance for actors in actually-existing democratic circumstances. This article develops an ethical account of deliberative democratic action under imperfectly just conditions characterized by material and political inequality and failures of reciprocity. Under such conditions, appropriate principles of action can resolve the tension between deliberation and confrontational political activism. The logic of this account parallels the justification for civil disobedience: the extent of permissible deviation from deliberative norms increases according to the adversity of political circumstances. This ethical account is composed of principles of deliberative activism, applications of those principles to four kinds of increasing unfavorable circumstances, and a menu of institutional and political strategies that increase deliberative inclusion and equality.
Article
Full-text available
We address the question of how and why corporate social responsibility (CSR) differs among countries and how and why it changes. Applying two schools of thought in institutional theory we conceptualize, first, the differences between CSR in the USA and Europe and, second, the recent rise of CSR in Europe. We also delineate the potential of our framework for application to other parts of the global economy.
Article
Full-text available
In this review, the primary subject is the ‘business case’ for corporate social responsibility (CSR). The business case refers to the underlying arguments or rationales supporting or documenting why the business community should accept and advance the CSR ‘cause’. The business case is concerned with the primary question: What do the business community and organizations get out of CSR? That is, how do they benefit tangibly from engaging in CSR policies, activities and practices? The business case refers to the bottom-line financial and other reasons for businesses pursuing CSR strategies and policies. In developing this business case, the paper first provides some historical background and perspective. In addition, it provides a brief discussion of the evolving understandings of CSR and some of the long-established, traditional arguments that have been made both for and against the idea of business assuming any responsibility to society beyond profit-seeking and maximizing its own financial well-being. Finally, the paper addresses the business case in more detail. The goal is to describe and summarize what the business case means and to review some of the concepts, research and practice that have come to characterize this developing idea.
Article
Full-text available
We critically assess integrative social contracts theory (ISCT) and show that the concept particularly lacks of moral justification of substantive hypernorms. By drawing on Habermasian philosophy, in particular discourse ethics and its recent application in the theory of deliberative democracy, we further advance ISCT and show that social contracting in business ethics requires a well-justified procedural rather than a substantive focus for managing stakeholder relations. We also replace the monological concept of hypothetical thought experiments in ISCT by a concept of practical discourse to better govern business activities on the macro-level of organizational actors such as firms, governments, and NGOs.
Book
„Globalisierung“ ist ein auch in der Alltagssprache viel gebrauchter und gleichzeitig nichtssagender Begriff. Offensichtlich wächst die Welt durch Politik, Handel, Mobilität und Kommunikation immer mehr zusammen und es lassen sich zunehmend institutionelle und regionale Abhängigkeiten feststellen. Andererseits wird mit dem Begriff „Globalisierung“ in einem fatalistischen Sinne die Verantwortung für Problemlagen und -lösungen geleugnet. Wo ist es nun wirklich berechtigt, von globalen sozialwissenschaftlichen Parametern zu sprechen? Wie wirken sie und worin liegt die besondere Abhängigkeit und Dynamik? Dieser Band stellt einen aktuellen Überblick ausgewiesener AutorInnen zu einzelnen gesellschaftlichen Teilbereichen zusammen und benennt sozialwissenschaftliche Aspekte und Folgerungen.
Chapter
Das Thema „Corporate Governance“ bezeichnet einen Strang der ökonomischen Governance-Forschung (→ Wirtschaft). Hier geht es um Governance-Probleme auf der Mikroebene des einzelnen Unternehmens - also um das „Steuern und Koordinieren [-] mit dem Ziel des Managements von Interdependenzen“ (Benz 2004: 25) zwischen verschiedenen am Unternehmensgeschehen beteiligten Akteurgruppen. Der folgende Beitrag erläutert einleitend den Begriff der Corporate Governance und sodann die verschiedenen Corporate-Governance-Modelle in westlichen Industrieländern. In einem dritten Abschnitt werden die prominentesten Analyseperspektiven der Corporate-Governance-Forschung vorgestellt. Das darauffolgende Kapitel widmet sich dem Wandel der Corporate Governance seit den 1980er Jahren. Ein Ausblick auf künftige Forschungsperspektiven schließt den Beitrag ab.
Article
The decision to pay dividends is influenced by many financial factors. The purpose of this study is to find the relationships between corporate governance, institutional ownership, and the decision to pay dividends in American service firms. A sample of 296 American firms listed on New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) for a period of 3 years (from 2009-2011) was selected. This study applied a co-relational and non-experimental research design. The findings of this study indicate that the decision to pay dividends is a positive function of board size, CEO duality, and internationalization of the firm, and a negative function of institutional ownership. The results show that when i) firm size is held constant, the decision to pay an amount of dividends is a positive function of CEO duality, board size, and internationalization, and a negative function of institutional ownership, ii) firm performance is held constant, the decision to pay dividends is a positive function of CEO duality, and a negative function of institutional ownership, iii) financial leverage is held constant, the decision to pay dividends is a positive function of CEO duality, board size, and internationalization, and a negative function of institutional ownership, and iv) firm growth is held constant, the decision to pay dividends is a negative function of institutional ownership.This study contributes to the literature on the factors that influence the decision to pay an amount of dividends. The findings may be useful for stock market investors, stakeholders, financial managers, and financial management consultants.
Article
The UN Global Compact is a voluntary initiative designed to help fashion a more humane world by enlisting business to follow ten principles concerning human rights, labor, the environment, and corruption. Although the four-year-old Compact is a relatively successful initiative, having signed up over eleven hundred companies and more than two hundred of the large multinationals, and having begun some important projects on globalization issues, there is a serious problem in that very few of the major U.S. companies have joined. While the premier U.S. companies are interested in meeting the legitimate expectations of society, there is concern centering around accountability issues. The accountability issues are in four major areas: 1. Accountability showing that the globalization of the economy actually helps the poor. 2. Accountability showing the corporate performance matches rhetoric. 3. Accountability that provides legitimacy to a two-tier pricing system and other measures that are designed to assist the poor in developing countries. 4. Accountability in the human rights area; what societal expectations are multinational companies accountable for? The article outlines the problems that the Compact brings to the fore and offers some insight from the ethical literature that may address U.S. company concerns or provide new ways of thinking about the issues. It further argues that the forum provided by the Compact may be the most effective means to gain consensus of the role of business in society.
Article
This article examines why global corporate social responsibility (CSR) frameworks have gained popularity in the past decade, despite their uncertain costs and benefits, and how they affect adherents’ behavior. We focus on the two largest global frameworks—the United Nations Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative—to examine patterns of CSR adoption by governments and corporations. Drawing on institutional and political-economy theories, we develop a new analytic framework that focuses on four key environmental factors—global institutional pressure, local receptivity, foreign economic penetration, and national economic system. We propose two arguments about the relationship between stated commitment and subsequent action: decoupling due to lack of capacity and organized hypocrisy due to lack of will. Our cross-national time-series analyses show that global institutional pressure through nongovernmental linkages encourages CSR adoption, but this pressure leads to ceremonial commitment in developed countries and to substantive commitment in developing countries. Moreover, in developed countries, liberal economic policies increase ceremonial commitment, suggesting a pattern of organized hypocrisy whereby corporations in developed countries make discursive commitments without subsequent action. We also find that in developing countries, short-term trade relations exert greater influence on corporate CSR behavior than do long-term investment transactions.
Article
We critically examine the content of contemporary understandings of corporate citizenship and locate them within the extant body of research dealing with business-society relations. Our main purpose is to realize a theoretically informed definition of corporate citizenship that is descriptively robust and conceptually distinct from existing concepts in the literature. Specifically, our extended perspective exposes the element of "citizenship" and conceptualizes corporate citizenship as the administration of a bundle of individual citizenship rights - social, civil, and political - conventionally granted and protected by governments.
Article
Scholars in management and economics widely share the assumption that business firms focus on profits only, while it is the task of the state system to provide public goods. In particular, it is the state’s mandate to regulate the economy in such a way that business activities contribute to the common good. In this view business firms are conceived of as economic actors, and governments and their state agencies are considered the only political actors. We suggest that, under the conditions of globalization, the strict division of labor between private business and nation state governance does not hold any more. Many business firms have started to assume social and political responsibilities that go beyond legal requirements and fill the regulatory vacuum in global governance. Our review of the literature shows that there are a growing number of publications from various disciplines that propose a politicized concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR). We consider the implications of this new perspective for theorizing about the business firm, governance, and democracy.
Article
Social screening of investments calls not only for investment policy and criteria, but also for information about companies, their policies, practices and performance. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and its June 2000 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines have the potential to significantly improve the usefulness and quality of information reported by companies about their environmental, social and economic impacts and performance. The GRI aims to develop a voluntary reporting framework that will elevate sustainability reporting practices to a level equivalent to that of financial reporting in rigour, comparability, auditability and general acceptance. This will be a welcome and efficient supplement to the questionnaires, interviews, press releases, media reports and other sources of information traditionally used for screening in investment decision making – social/ethical and mainstream. The Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index, the Jantzi Social Index and the Innovest EcoValue''21 analytical platform, together with the SRI community, are all likely to benefit from GRI-style sustainability reports. One of the GRI''s key challenges is to accommodate the broad variety of disclosure needs and expectations of a wide range of report users and company stakeholders. To maximize the usefulness of the GRI Guidelines, report users, including the SRI community, need to be engaged in the process of developing and refining the Guidelines over time. The GRI Guidelines are emerging as an important instrument in enabling companies to communicate with their stakeholders about performance and accountability beyond just the financial bottom line.
Global Compact" als Plattform für eine Diskussion über Menschenrechte und Umweltschutzmaßnahmen; der "SA8000-Standard" als Vergleichsmaßstab für die Bedingungen globaler Zulieferwege; und die "Global Reporting Initiative
  • Bekannte Beispiele
Bekannte Beispiele dafür sind der "Global Compact" als Plattform für eine Diskussion über Menschenrechte und Umweltschutzmaßnahmen; der "SA8000-Standard" als Vergleichsmaßstab für die Bedingungen globaler Zulieferwege; und die "Global Reporting Initiative", die Standards für CSR-Berichte bereitstellt (Scherer & Palazzo 2011: 910; Williams 2004; Willis 2003).
Die Gemeinwohl-Ökonomie. Eine demokratische Alternative wächst
  • C Felber
Felber, C., 2012: Die Gemeinwohl-Ökonomie. Eine demokratische Alternative wächst. Wien: Deuticke.
Warum übernehmen Unternehmen gesellschaftliche Verantwortung? Ein soziologischer Erklärungsversuch
  • S Hiß
Hiß, S., 2006: Warum übernehmen Unternehmen gesellschaftliche Verantwortung? Ein soziologischer Erklärungsversuch. Zugl.: Bamberg, Univ., Diss., 2005. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verl.
Zur Translation und Finanzialisierung von Corporate Social Responsibility
  • K Senge
Senge, K., 2015: Zur Translation und Finanzialisierung von Corporate Social Responsibility. S. 266-286 in: A. Graf & C. Möller (Hrsg.), Bildung -Macht -Eliten. Zur Reproduktion sozialer Ungleichheit. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.