Vogel (2006)

Vogel (2006)

General Review:

Standpoints centred more on the company and its management. Focuses on both potential and cost. Describes and analyses CSR development and transformation resent years and discusses their benefits and limitations and recommendations for the future. Describes and analyses the “market for virtue” and links this to government CSR-regulation balance as a market development mechanism. Appears to be focused on global issues and the difference in national legislation and global ethics.

Core Theory (logical explanation or testable model of interaction):

P73 Two broad categories; competitive niche differentiation and threat from consumer/NGO reaction Opportunity or Risk driven.

Pressure from customers, employees and investors. Responsibility towards all stakeholders also investors money.

Government intervention (regulation or litigation), largest motivating factor for improvement.

P133Sees a relationship between CSR, globalisation and public policies (regulation). During last decades.

P16 Link between ethics and profit. CSR reduces risks, improves ability to attract employees and customers and obtain finances at low cost. Competitive position is improved but virtue is not business in itself. CSR is a niche just as not being responsible is.

Link between CSR and generations. What is going to happen???

Core concepts (abstract idea or a mental symbol ):

Fair Trade products; Ethical products; Organic products, Green products.

Social entrepreneurship, business with the purpose to achieve social or environmental goals.

P2 CSR or business virtue is practices that improve the workplace and benefit society in ways that go above and beyond what companies are legally required to do.

Core framework (structure used to outline, address or solve complex issues):

none

Core models (pattern, plan or description showing main object or workings of concept):

none

Methods used:

Literature review and analysis.

Notes 31 pages with empirical evidence but concludes that the business case for CSR still has little empirical basis.

Cites:

Pxi Stier, “investing in Climate Change” – “no appreciable differential in share prices has yet occurred between greener firms and industry laggards”.

P33 “the risk associated with CSR are no different than those associated with any other business strategy; sometimes investments in CSR make business sense and sometimes they do not” – “ Why should we expect investments in CSR to consistently create shareholder value when virtually no other business investments or strategies do so?”

P135 “Swiss chemical firm Ciba tried to market a low-salt dye that would reduce wastewater, it met with considerable resistance; its business customers focused on the apparent price….rather than the lower overall costs of adopting a more environmentally friendly manufacturing process”

Relatedness to objective:

Describes several global initiatives in extractive industries, concerning social and environmental standards.

P2-3 In final analysis CSR is sustainable only if virtue pays off.

P3 CSR is best understood as a niche rather than a generic strategy. There is a competitive place for more or less responsible firms. There is a link to mission.

Business System structure (separation in ownership and control) (globalisation) and attitudes towards business increase CRS belief.

P16 CSR reduces risks, improves ability to attract employees and customers and obtain finances at low cost.

P71 Financial market a constraint as there are focus on short term financial targets for public companies.

Relatedness to questions:

Pxvi Dean Foust (2003) The Best Performers, Business Week, April 3, pp 64-100 provides further evidence favoring scepticism about the business case for CSR. Lists fifty best financial performers in US, few above average CSR performance, but nowhere mentionened benefits, opportunities or risk related to CSR.

Arguments/points made (set of one or more declarative sentences):

Pxxi “CSR is very much a moving target. It is now much different than it was five or ten years ago, and it will continue to evolve”

Pxxi new generation of more socially committed managers leads to more responsible leadership, has been around for more generations (maby just changing with the environment)

P28 reconciliation of social values and business system “the emergence of companies with a conscience” formed by individuals with strong personal social commitments, regarding business as money making vehicle and society provision.

P15 Business case strongest among firms making CSR a part of strategy for attracting and retaining customers, employees and investors and for highly visible global companies that have been targeted by activists.

P17 “Unfortunately there is no evidence that behaving more virtuously makes firms more profitable.”

Pxvii important shortcoming of CSR is its failure to appreciate the critical role of public policy in promoting more-responsible corporate behaviour. (Ford commitment in reducing environmental impact, while lobbying against strengthening of federal standards.

P126 Lesson learned (Ford and BP case) on Corporate Environmental Responsibility is that internal initiatives (reducing cost) is the easiest way to demonstrate serious company commitment to reduce emissions. Consumers are willing to do-the-right thing – if it is easy.

Criticises:

P12 Hopkins, Planetary bargain for CSR not being the purpose of business

P12 Laffer

P12 Moscowitz

P30-32 All measurements of CSR financial benefits.

Supports:

P13 Personal motivation, corporate legitimating. P18 “enlightened self-interest”

P21 Porter, Michael and Kramer, Mark (2002) The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, December, 67

P20 Lazlo

Critique:

Government regulation is regarded as positive without mentioning the negative effects, costs and shortcomings that also feature a regulation. Nevertheless p163 mentioning several examples of companies doing more good better than governments.

Period

Driving force
1914

Lipman, Walter Drift and Mastery – talking more and more about responsibilities and stewardship to balance stockholders, consumers and public

Change in ownership structure
1953

New Jersey Supreme Court rules positive on Corporate Philanthropy

Attract employees
1960s – 70s Allocating portion of profit expected and common practice of large firms, 5% and 2-5% clubs of donating businesses Self-interest
1967-70 Survey of business urban affairs programme Self-interest

Risk management

1967 61% of college students hostile against working in an industry (Baby Boomers and Late BB now in top management) Social trend
1971 Pax World Fund – Social Responsible Investment to avoid shares in Vietnam war shares Reacting on Social trend
1982 The Calvert Social Investment Fund to avoid SA, defence, environmental degradation and human right disrespectful shares Reacting on Social trend
1983 American Express cause-related marketing supporting the restoration of Statue of Liberty Increased sales
1980s The decade of greed  Social trend
1990 Successful entrepreneurs more popular and Silicon Valley driving US national pride, Business Schools attractive Social trend
2000 Social Investment Funds – Who Cares Win – Put your money to work Attract customers
2002 70% of global chief executives believe is vital to P (PWC survey) 91% believe in SV perceived Profitability &

Shareholder Value

2000+ Companies with a conscience – founding, maintaining and sustaining a Social Responsible firm Money and moral
Now MBA programmes with both financial and social focus

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *