How Businesses Can Effect Positive CSR

¶ … Corporate Social Responsibility Programs Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs are effective forms of management that directly and indirectly impact the "social, environmental and economic environment in which" the corporation functions (Castka, Bamber, Sharp, 2005, p. vii). In this context, corporations are viewed by societies as influential in the development of a "better world" (Friedman, Miles, 2002, p. 1).

By using an ethical foundation for a business model, corporations have gained substantial market share and public trust because they are viewed as being good for the environment and for communities (as well as delivering a good product) while other companies have come under fire and social pressure for not living up to an ethical standard (Pearce, Doh, 2005). The factors that affect the implementation of CSR programs can range from governmental standards to stakeholder involvement to moral and ethical cultures (or lack thereof) within the corporate entity (AnyangoOoko, 2014).

This paper will discuss these various factors and show how some act as facilitators towards implementation of CSR while others act as barriers. Adopting a "spirit of mission" (Samaan, Verneuil, 2009) can be one of the best facilitators towards implementation of CSR. A spirit of mission within an organization creates an atmosphere of collective consciousness in which everyone at every level is a willing participant in the company's movement towards an ethical goal and objective.

The company's aim, whether to provide a service or produce a product, is deemed beneficial to society, and the achievement of this aim is effected by way of ethical means, such as a virtue system or culture within the corporation/organization. This means providing guidance (corporate guidance for stakeholders) in terms of the value and importance of organizational culture maintenance and quality management.

From a top-down perspective, this includes two-way communication flows and a theoretical model such as transactional management in order to facilitate internal growth in virtue behavior and external growth in community outreach and the maintaining of community/governmental standards (in terms of accounting, environmental waste, etc.). Organizational discipline and "spirit of mission" are intimately linked in an organization's successful operation (Samaan, Vernueil, 2009) and greatly impact the implementation of CSR programs.

The spirit of mission is collective in the sense that it is the motivating factor, the common interest, among individuals within an organization, driving them to achieve a specific aim or common good. Each individual adds to or takes away from the total spirit of mission. An apt metaphor may be found in the idea that each individual is a cylinder in an engine.

If all cylinders are firing, working together and according to the precepts to which they are bound, the spirit of mission can be said to be operating optimally. The metaphor may be expanded in the sense that other factors contribute to the successful operation of an engine. However, for the purpose of this study, the essential "spirit" is such that it represents a guiding force or intelligence, without which no operation can succeed.

When a discernible spirit is manifested, the surrounding community and consumer public are more likely to take note and show their appreciation, as the manifestation of a "spirit" demonstrates corporate social responsibility. In organizations where the "spirit" is perceived to be reckless, say in a company like Enron, for instance, no CSR is demonstrated. As in the case of Enron, there was considerable irresponsibility in the keeping of financial records and oversight as the "spirit" of mission within the corporation was to get-rich-quick its way to the top.

Some perceived this as a good, while others like Sherron Watkins did not. Conflict within an organization inevitably arises when the mission is perceived differently by two or more groups within the organization. One may accuse the other of lacking the right spirit. Aims may differ as a result and the corporation loses both cohesion and any grasp of CSR in the eyes of the public. The idea of spirit of mission is, of course, thousands of years old. Sun Tzu (2010, p.

37) wrote, "He will win whose army is animated with the same spirit throughout all its rank." This idea is still commonly held today although generically and generally used in simplistic expressions, as in: team spirit, esprit de corps, community of interests, group spirit, etc.

Regardless of the exact term, the idea is consistent in the sense of an entity (organization) rooted in achieving the common good, which is a notion that goes beyond the borders of its own company and takes into consideration the good of the environment, the public good, the national good, etc. Thus, when NAFTA made it so that companies could go overseas for cheap labor, the level of corporate social responsibility that was displayed fell through the floor.

Today, one of the talking points of front-running Republican candidate Trump is that his aim is to make companies more accountable and to bring jobs back home. This would line up well with the program of CSR because it would illustrate how the common good of a society is interwoven with its business practices.

Thus, relaxed trade laws that tempt companies away from a desire to unite themselves to the national good is one barrier to the affective implementation of CSR -- and if Trump wants to be true to his promises, then ending the NAFTA will be a positive first step. Another factor that affects the implementation of CSR is whether or not a company has an effective system of organizational discipline. Enron did not and its level of CSR, whatever it was, quickly fell apart.

Organizations which suffer from corruption from within have failed to adopt a right spirit, a system of ethics, a habit of rightful acting and thinking, or a habit of virtue. A discussion of the merit of virtue ethics could coincide with a discussion of CSR because it is ethics which drives the mission, and as Samaan and Verneuil show in their study of the U.S.

Coast Guard's response to Hurricane Katrina, it is this "spirit of mission" or level of corporate social responsibility that allowed them to be one of the only successful responding organizations at the time of that tragedy. Thus, the best recommended course of action for leaders responding to change in an organization would be to develop a "spirit of mission" that is ethical in the sense that it supports transparency and accountability.

In the U.S., Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) demonstrated a complete lack of CSR when it set aside law and ethics when it engaged in price-fixing of the lysine market with its competitors. Price-fixing is illegal in the U.S. and when the FBI was alerted to the actions of ADM, a sting operation was put into effect. Top executives at ADM were found guilty and sentenced to prison (Eichenwald, 2000).

Here is an example of a business failing implement an effective CSR program within the accepted parameters of society's ethical/moral system and the codified laws of the nation. Instead of adhering to an ethical code, it participated in the act of dividing up market share, violating the trust of the U.S. government and costing itself millions of dollars in fines.

It also contributed to the loss of the public's trust in large corporate entities as it served as a perfect example of how corporations are primarily concerned with their own good first and not that of the average citizen or consumer. The reason that law and ethics are so readily flaunted in corporate systemology is fundamentally simple: there is a lack of respect either for the value of law or for the value of the other side of the negotiating party.

Oftentimes, unsuccessful implementations of CSR will show that corporations view their competitors and even their consumers with distrust, trying to judge how the counterpart is taking advantage of him. This mentality goes against the principle of mutual respect and the spirit of collaboration that is so helpful in successful CSR implementations. What fosters this lack of respect? Graham's (1983) study hints at the different cultural mentalities that breed unsuccessful negotiating skills. In America, for instance, Graham cites representational bargaining strategies as the most fundamental in American negotiations.

By contrast, Brazilian negotiations are hotbeds of deceptive bargaining strategies, utilized to create outcomes that favor only one side of the negotiating table. Graham examines how cultural mentalities affect the way negotiators respect law, ethics, and the counterpart at the negotiating table. In Leung and Tong's (2004) study of corporate models, they discuss culture as the arbiter of law and ethics.

In this sense, it may be argued that the development of culture is essential in the maintaining of a law-abiding and ethical mentality, which can then be used to support successful, principled negotiations. Leung and Tong state that "cultural differences in justice practices may constitute significant barriers to intercultural negotiation" (Leung, Tong, 2004, p. 330). Because of cultural differences, however, (as the example of Russia's Gazprom and its European counterparts, for instance, shows), ideas of justice, fairness, law and ethics can actually become barriers.

One side of the party, for instance, will reflect that it is acting solely while the counterpart is acting unreasonably or selfishly -- when in actuality, it is merely adopting a judgmental attitude based on a misconception of its own righteousness. As Socrates attempts to teach Euthyphro in the ancient text, "knowing oneself" is of utmost importance in discerning right actions and attitudes.

In other words, one cannot act rightly (i.e., according to morals and ethics) if one does not first understand the nature of one's own habits and their orientation). Likewise, employees may see how the health of a business, firm or organization is based on the ability of its teams to play a role in keeping a pleasant environment, so that they may achieve results in the best conditions possible.

Also, on a management level, more emphasis put on transformational leadership and EI can over time build a solid foundation of trust, which is essential for long-term change in any organization. Combining transformational leadership skills and EI with a willingness to enthusiastically sacrifice their own time and efforts over and above common expectation has proven to be a powerful catalyst of team solidarity and commitment to attaining challenging objectives.

The outcomes of this level of effort, intensity and personal sacrifice on the part of a transformational leader, is respect and a solid foundation of CSR. Moreover, external factors can be influential in the implementation of CSR programs. For example, government agencies may demand of corporations more rigorous testing of products or more ethical safety and work standards. This was certainly the case in 1906 when President Roosevelt passed the Pure Food and Drug Act. This Act was passed by the U.S.

government in order to ensure that the meatpacking plants in Chicago and elsewhere were essentially living up to standards of good corporate social responsibility -- and this nearly a century before such discussions were ever taking place in academic circles. The fact is that CSR has always been an issue in societies where lax corporate regulations have allowed unethical practices to go unpunished or undisciplined.

It only serves to reinforce the notion that what is needed in order to really facilitate the implementation of CSR is an ethical standard within the corporation and an ethical standard without, in the form of government oversight. And the two standards must align to meet the universal standards of ethical and moral practices, or at least those of the society in which the corporation is based. Organizations, as De Maria (2005) suggests, are informed and shaped by the culture around it.

A "just culture" is only as just as the men and women who define, support, and govern it. For a "just culture" to exist, the entire culture must possess the same 'spirit of mission'. If that culture is subject to outside political/social/economic pressures which have a conflicting spirit, the reporting aspect of it (and any active learning that goes along with it) will have a cost.

If the price is deemed too high by those who wield the most influence, the toll of implementing the CSR will be significant, for it require substantial change in the character of the corporation -- and sometimes the very character of the corporation -- the tone at the top of the pyramid -- is set by individuals without scruples, without a just culture mentality, and without a care for ethical considerations or a positive and healthy relationship with the consuming public.

In short, if the stakeholders at the top of the corporation are unwilling to manifest in their own outlook a sense of social responsibility then everything that is evinced below them will be nothing more than lip service. The reality will not be one in which CSR is manifested unless the corporate heads show that they expect this in a top-down approach for all to see.

For example, the relationship between just culture and oversight is seen in the case of Monsanto, which has nothing but protection from having to be socially responsible from none other than the U.S. government. Because the corporate heads do not hold the company accountable and the government does not hold it accountable, there is little likelihood of it implementing any sort of CSR program. Accountability is an enormous factor in the implementation of a CSR program.

Indeed and on the contrary, Monsanto represents one of the strongest cases of white collar crime as environmental crime in the modern age with its cancer-causing, genetically-modified organisms producer of unnatural food stuffs and Round-Up, which California has just labeled as a cancer-causing agent.

But Monsanto has been the subject of many researchers ire for many years, including independent journalist William Engdahl (2007) in his book Seeds of Destruction, which chronicles the rise of Monsanto due to the protection of other persons in "high society" such as the President of the United States and the "laws" passed which criminalized any study into the negative effects of Monsanto's products rather than any activity by Monsanto itself (Engdahl, 2007).

This perverse inversion of the law (now written to protect the offender instead of the public and/or environment victimized by the offender) illustrates just how protected white-collar criminals have become in American society. It is a country that is for, by, and of the white-collar criminal class. The cost of Monsanto's "green-collar" crime has been estimated in the billions, though the number is actually unknown because as of yet the GMO-giant has not been convicted (Engdahl, 2007).

Another factor that plays a fundamental role in implementing CSR is a theoretical framework or strategy. For example, management should have an approach within its system that allows for the CSR program to be effected. This could call for a system of change management or transformational leadership management. Definition and clarity are essential in the change/quality process which can be a factor in the CSR implementation process. It is an exercise in progressing from the status-quo to something better.

The steps to effecting this process are simple: first, everyone must understand where they are where they want to be as an organization; second, the organization must identify that which is to implemented as a key to progress (a new system, for example); third, the system must be tried with users receiving training and real-life practice; finally, the process must be reviewed and compared to the overall concept goal.

Part of the process of implementing the change management model is to devise the concept and design model, which will then receive its actual implementation: this is the "go live" portion of the process. This is when the model is first initiated in the environment. Thus, the relationship between CSR implementation and theory is like that of a foundation and support beams to a house: the theory provides the foundation and framework of the structure so that it is solid.

The change management theory for CSR implementation can be as simple as utilizing something like likeability as a facilitator of success. Likeability is a complex factor defined by a combination of traits such as EI, transparency, and trust.

The concept of trust is based on both a feeling and a knowledge of ability, follow-through, stability, and reliability in an "other." Trust can take several different objectives, from the physical to the metaphysical; for example, one may "trust" one's car to get him where he wants to go; one may "trust" that Providence will provide for him. In the workplace, trust may be synonymous with confidence and the comfort level which one experiences when relying on another.

Trust has also been used as the basis for a specific management style. Trust is also a support in the link between society and the corporation. If there is no trust between the two, social discord will result. This most recently happened in the Occupy Wall Street movement following the 2008 bailouts of banks with tax payer money after the banks made bad business deals.

The public felt that it had been betrayed by government employees who used to work for these banks; thus, the trust that should be there for CSR to be implemented was not -- and protests arose.

The issue has still yet to be resolved, and so the crisis has only deepened as the public has less and less trust in either banks or government officials -- which may contribute to the reason why a political outsider like Trump is now a front-runner: he represents the public, something that few in business or in government have done of late.

This brings one back to the point that President Roosevelt made in 1906 when he passed the Pure Food and Drug Act to ensure that the meatpacking industry was practicing ethical behavior in the workplace and being more socially responsible in terms of providing its workers with the means to live a healthy and safe life. Roosevelt essentially stepped in and helped the corporations to change, to transform.

He was an external pressure -- and this can sometimes be needed in order for the corporation to transform from a selfish, only-interested-in-profits culture to a socially responsible culture with a more defined spirit of mission. Roosevelt in his capacity.