This paper examines corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a social construct and compares the 2014 CSR reports of two food-industry companies: Kellogg's and Monsanto. Drawing on Dahlsrud's (2006) finding that CSR lacks a single universal definition, the paper evaluates each company's approach to stakeholder engagement, environmental sustainability, worker welfare, and supply chain ethics. Kellogg's is found to present a more comprehensive report — one aligned with Global Reporting Initiative guidelines — featuring measurable targets across multiple stakeholder dimensions. Monsanto's report, by contrast, is narrower in scope, lacks objective metrics in most areas, and is oriented primarily toward shareholders. The paper concludes that neither company fully confronts long-term sustainability challenges, particularly dependence on fossil fuel-based fertilizers and unsustainable water use.
The concept of corporate social responsibility began to arise in the 1960s as an ideal that corporations can have a number of different impacts on society and the environment through their actions. Corporations are not simply answerable to shareholders, but to a wide variety of other stakeholders as well. The responsibility that corporations have, therefore, is social, not just economic. Dahlsrud (2006) studied a number of different definitions for corporate social responsibility and determined that it is not something that can be defined in a single, universal way. Rather, CSR is a social construct, meaning that there are multiple definitions and which definition is most suitable depends on the way the term is used. For corporations, the implication is that they can set their own definitions based on what is relevant to their interests and the interests of their different stakeholders. The classic view that the only social responsibility corporations have is to their shareholders (Friedman, 1970) is no longer valid, because it is understood that there are many stakeholders for a given business, and they are all important to different degrees.
The construct of CSR typically reflects a few different dimensions of stakeholder responsibility. These include internal people (staff), external people, and the environment at the very least. Subjects frequently addressed in the field are worker equity, environmental harm, supply chain practices, sustainability, and the business aspects of social responsibility. The framing of these issues tends to be whatever is most appropriate for the company, or what it perceives its stakeholders to be most interested in. There are no set measures for CSR performance, and at this point there is no common format for a corporate social responsibility report — the exercise is entirely voluntary. This paper examines two related companies at different ends of the reputation scale for corporate social responsibility: Kellogg's and Monsanto.
Kellogg's main business is producing foods, in particular breakfast cereal and other grain-based products. Its 2014 Corporate Responsibility Report is divided into several sections covering different topics: responsible sourcing, marketplace, workplace, environment, and community. The report is produced in accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which is the closest thing there is to a global standard for CSR reporting. The GRI sets out guidelines for the production of CSR reports and verifies that reports are produced in accordance with those guidelines. The Kellogg's report is based on the company's core principles that social responsibility reflects its "activities and developments in four pillar areas of marketplace, workplace, environment and community." Kellogg's also believes in corporate social responsibility across the value chain, which invites direct comparison with Monsanto.
Kellogg's outlines in its 2014 report a set of 2020 sustainability commitments. These include "responsibly sourced" agricultural products, with particular attention to sustainable agriculture. The company highlights several elements of this approach, including sourcing from smallholder farms and female-owned farms. Kellogg's also has a strategy with respect to watershed quality and water reuse at its plants, with a target of 25% reused water. Energy objectives include expanding the use of low-carbon energy at its plants by 50% by 2020. Overall, most of the company's objectives include a defined term, a numerical target, and a set timeframe for achievement.
This structured approach also applies to several other elements of Kellogg's social responsibility strategy. The company has targets for workplace accidents, seeking to reduce both the number of such incidents and the amount of worker downtime that results. Charitable contributions are measured and reported as well.
One area where Kellogg's and Monsanto share similarities is on the nutrition side. Food companies seek to strike a balance in producing nourishing food. Kellogg's, as a producer of prepared foods like breakfast cereals, measures the sugar and calorie counts of its products. Sourcing is a key food-related issue. Kellogg's instituted a Supplier Code of Conduct in 2009, works with small farmers in a number of developing-world countries, and has recently introduced new sourcing commitments — including a commitment to work directly with more farmers, which supports the livelihoods of smaller farmers throughout the supply chain. Included among the new commitments is a stated goal of sourcing all ten key ingredients from responsible sources by 2020. The report dedicates specific sections to controversial products such as palm oil. The supplier code of conduct exists to ensure that the supply chain is held to ethical standards, an important element given that many large corporations orient their supply chains toward low-cost production only, which can lead to negative outcomes for labor and the environment.
"Monsanto's limited and shareholder-focused CSR report"
"Side-by-side critique of metrics, scope, and transparency"
The perspective that a company adopts with respect to social responsibility will be reflected in its corporate social responsibility reporting. Kellogg's has produced a reasonable report that addresses most of the key CSR categories and includes firm measures and targets against which stakeholders can evaluate progress. This cannot be said of Monsanto, which is more focused on shareholders, covers only a few CSR dimensions, and provides objective measures in just one area. The underlying business philosophies of both companies are essentially mirrored in their CSR reports. Monsanto does accomplish some positive things, and these are highlighted in its report; however, much that should be part of a comprehensive CSR strategy is missing. Ultimately, there is a sense that Monsanto does not fully understand CSR, given the many gaps in its approach. Kellogg's may be only average in its performance, but the company at least demonstrates an understanding of the stakeholder model.
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.