Throughout this chapter we have emphasized that learning to become socially responsible is a strategic process that requires fundamental organi- zational changes. It requires a willingness to move beyond the borders of the organization in order to engage in new relationships, to be alert to new issues that might lie outside the production and consumption chain, and to design new strategies and deploy them in day-to-day operations. All this cannot be accomplished in one step, which is why the focus of this chapter has been on the gradual of the development of the competences required to face emerging challenges.
Although the competences needed for CSR are ultimately based on indi- vidual actions, we have stressed that the learning process requires collective competences because:
● CSR is anchored in a specific organizational identity.
● Organizational units have to cooperate in order to become more responsible.
● Individuals have to be aware that their actions constitute organizational actions.
● Corporate accountability requires an organization, as a collective entity, to be willing to bear corporate responsibility.
These four requirements lie at the heart the strategic process of developing CSR competences and diffusing them throughout the organization. As it can be difficult for organizations to make their way through this learning
process. We have offered a process model and a list of relevant competences.
Our empirical research has shown that this list is reasonably comprehensive, but depending on the organization’s orientation towards CSR and the stage of development of the organization, certain process competences will at times be more relevant than others.
Another topic addressed in this chapter is whether competence manage- ment, which nowadays is used as a management tool in many organizations, is of value when developing collective CSR competences. We conclude that competence management can be of some use in learning to become respon- sible because it can link strategic choices to individual tasks. However, if organizations wish to use competence management for CSR purposes the existing competences should be expanded to include CSR-specific compe- tences based on the defining organizational values.
Furthermore, competence management should never be used as the sole instrument for developing collective CSR competences. Besides establishing links between strategic choices and individual tasks, organization-wide CSR requires action in other areas, such as developing a shared understanding of the identity of the organization, fulfilling the necessary preconditions for responsible behaviour in the respect of information exchange, the allocation of suitable resources and an appropriate division of tasks, formal responsibil- ities and areas of authority.
Collective competences can be developed by means of appropriate instru- ments. Our empirical research has shown that organizations use a variety approaches, instruments and tools to develop process competences for CSR.
Further research could be conducted to identity specific configurations of instruments that would be suitable for tackling the ongoing challenge of learning to be more responsible.
Note
1. This chapter stems from a project that is currently being conducted by a consortium of researchers from the University of Twente, the University of Nijmegen and Nyenrode University (all in the Netherlands). It is part of a research programme on CSR by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. The purpose of the project is to identify strategies, mechanisms and instruments that organizations can employ to develop CSR. Particular attention is paid to the question of how organizations can ensure that CSR is not a one-off endeavour, but becomes relevant throughout the organization. The empirical part of the research consists of in-depth case studies of four Dutch companies. The knowledge gathered from these companies and the theoretical debate among the researchers have guided the writing of this chapter.
References
Amit, R. and P. J. H. Schoemaker (1993) ‘Strategic assets and organisational rent’, Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 33–46.
Asch, S. E. (1952) Social Psychology(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Bovens, M. A. P. (1990) Verantwoordelijkheid en Organisatie; beschouwingen over Aansprakelijkheid, Institutioneel Burgerschap en Ambtelijke Ongehoorzaamheid(Zwolle:
Tjeenk Willink).
Cohen, D. and L. Prusak (2001) In Good Company. How Social Capital Makes Organisations Work(Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press).
De Bruijn, T. and A. Nijhof (2004) Partnerships for CSR: Dream Wish or Necessity?(Hong Kong: Greening of Industries Network).
De Bruijn, T. and A. Tukker (2002) Partnership and Leadership(Dordrecht: Kluwer).
De Leede, J., A. H. J. Nijhof and O. A. M. Fisscher (1999) ‘The myth of self-managing teams: a reflection on the allocation of responsibilities between individuals, teams and the organisation; Journal of Business Ethics, 21, pp. 203–15.
Donaldson, T. J. and L. Preston (1995) ‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
Concepts, evidence, and implications’, Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 65–91.
Dreyfus, L. and S. E. Dreyfus (1992) ‘What is Moral Maturity? Towards a Phenomology of Ethical Expertise’, in Ogilvy, J. (ed.), Revisioning Philosophy (New York: State University of New York Press).
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) ‘Building Theories from Case-Study Research’, Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 532–50.
Elkington, J. (1999) ‘Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business (Oxford: Capstone).
French, P. A. (1984) Collective and Corporate Responsibility (New York: Columbia University Press).
Hartman, C. L., E. R. Stafford and M. J. Polonsky (2000) ‘Environmental NGO–Business collaboration and strategic bridging: a case, analysis of the Greenpeace–foron alliance,Business Strategy and Environment, March/April, pp. 122–35.
Hoekstra, H. and E. van Sluijs (2003) Competence Management(Assen: van Gorcum).
Holmes, R. and P. Watts (1999) Corporate Social Responsibility: Meeting Changing Expectations(Geneva: WBCSD).
Jonas, H. (1984) The Imperative of Responsibility: In search of an Ethics for the Technological Age(London: Chicago Press).
Jonker, J. and M. Schoemaker (2004) Developing CSR as an Organisational Value (Nijmegen: Radboud University).
Kaptein, M. (1998) Ethics Management: Auditing and Developing the Ethical Content of Organisations(Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Karssing, E. (2000) Morele Competentie in Organisaties(Assen: van Gorcum).
Lenk, H. (1992) Zwischen Wissenschaft und Ethik(Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag).
Lévêque, F. (ed.) (1996) Environmental Policy in Europe: Industry, Competition and the Policy Process, (Cheltenham: Brookfield).
Nijhof, A. (1999) Met zorg besluiten(Decision Making with Care) (Enschede: University Press).
Nijhof, A. and O. Fisscher (2001) ‘Unravelling morally responsible behaviour;
A process model for developing ethics programs’, paper presented at the Production and Environmental Management Conference, Nijmegen.
Roome, N. (2001) ‘Policies and Conditions for Environmental Innovation and Management in Industry’, paper presented at the International Conference on Environmental Innovation Systems, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 27–9 September.
Sandelands, L. E. and R. E. Stablein (1987) ‘The Concept of Organisation Mind’, in S. Bacharach and N. DiTomaso (eds), Research in the Sociology of Organisations (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp. 135–61.
Schoemaker, M. (2003a) ‘Identity in Flexible Organisations: Experiences in Dutch Organisations’,Creativity and Innovation Management, 12 (4), pp. 191–201.
Schoemaker, M. (ed.) (2003b) Jaarboek Personeelsmanagement 2004(Alphen a/d Rijn:
Kluwer).
Schoemaker, M. and J. Jonker (2004) ‘Managing intangible assets’, Journal of Management Development.
SER (2001) Corporate Social Responsibility: A Dutch Approach(Assen: van Gorcum).
Teece, D. J., G. Pisano and A. Schven (1997) ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’,Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509–33.
Thompson, D. (1988) ‘Ascribing Responsibility to Advisors in Government’, in Ethical Issues in Professional Life(New York: Oxford University Press).
Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (1998) The Measurement and Development of Professional Expertise throughout the Career. A Retrospective Study among Higher Level Dutch Professionals’ (Enschede: PrintPartners Ipskamp).
Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. and A. Nijhof (2004) ‘The value of subjectivity; problems and prospects for 360-degree appraisal systems’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, pp. 493–511.
Van Riel, C. (1995) Principles of Corporate Communication(Harlow: Prentice-Hall).
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2001) Sustainability through the Market: Seven Keys to Success(Geneva: WBCSD).
Weaver, G. R., L. K. Trevino and P. L. Cochran (1999) ‘Corporate Ethics Programs as Control Systems: Influences of Executive Commitment and Environmental Factors’, Academy of Management Journal, pp. 41–57.
Weick, K. E. and K. H. Roberts (1993) ‘Collective Mind in Organisations; Heedful inter- relating on Flight Decks’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38pp.
Wempe, J. (1998) ‘Market and Morality: Business Ethics and the Dirty and Many Hands Dilemma’, unpublished thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Werhane, P. H. (1985) Persons, Rights and Corporations(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
11
Standards for Corporate Social Responsibility
Math Göbbels
Introduction
Since the Second World War organizations have increasingly been subject to strong social pressure to account for the adverse consequences of their activities as profit-seeking corporations. This development, inter aliareferred to as corpo- rate social responsibility (CSR), has resulted in organizations and industries being held directly responsible for their actions and any damage caused to society. Because of these developments many organizations have been com- pelled to consider a more socially acceptable way of doing business. Against the background of the less prescriptive role of national governments, society and its international representatives – governmental organizations such as the UN and non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace and Oxfam – are urging corporations to take action.
The growing attention to CSR and the parallel emergence of numerous institutions specializing in the matter have resulted in a considerable number of diverse initiatives. Codes of conduct, education and training, stakeholder dialogue and sustainability reporting are amongst the many examples of what is offered in the CSR field. This chapter deals with the emergence of one specific type of CSR initiative that is generally referred to as CSR standards.
Recent examples include SA8000, AA1000, ISO 14001, the Global Reporting Initiative, the United Nation’s Global Compact and SIGMA. Earlier initiatives were the Caux Roundtable Principles for Business, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the ILO’s Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Based on several studies (OECD, 1999; Urminsky, 2000) the number of initiatives related to the standardization of CSR may – depending on the definition, term or scope used – amount to more than 300.
Although the standardization of CSR is a rather recent phenomenon, stan- dards in general have existed for a long time and are widely accepted in today’s society. Relics from ancient civilizations such as Babylon and early Egypt provide evidence that standardization was applied as many as seven thousand years ago. Some of the first forms of standardization were physical
173
standards for weights and measures. Throughout the centuries more and more agreements were reached on measurements, symbols, signals, means of payment, trials and conduct. By the turn of the twentieth century standard- ization was flourishing, and it has now developed to the point where it is intrinsic to the workings of society. It has extended far beyond its original industrial focus and now includes areas such as consumer safety, occupational health and a myriad of others, all of which serve to improve the quality and comfort of everyday life.
According to Standards Australia (2002), standardization and standards have, in part due to globalization and the related need for additional arrangements, become an integral part of economic, social and legal systems.
Brunsson and Jacobsson (2000, p. 21) note that ‘without standardisation the world would look quite different, and co-ordination would be much more difficult. Standards facilitate contact, co-operation, and trade over large areas and even throughout the world’. As de Vries (1999, p. 3) puts it, standardiza- tion functions ‘a lubricant for modern industrial society’. Its role is so taken for granted and deeply rooted in our daily life that we tend to forget its signif- icance for the development of, for example, telecommunications and the internet. According to Brunsson and Jacobsson (2000) standards flourish for common activities such as playing football, withdrawing money from an ATM machine, using a personal computer and a variety of other activities that need rules to facilitate convenience in one way or another. Nowadays not only technical and tangible objects are standardized but also organizations and the way they are expected to behave. Examples include the standards laid down by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for quality and environmental management systems (ISO 9001/14001). CSR can be regarded as the latest area in which an attempt is being made to set general standards.