Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

Introduction Governments, activists, and the media have become adept at holding companies to account for the social

consequences of their activities. Myriad organizations rank companies on the performance of their corporate social responsibility (CSR), and, despite sometimes questionable methodologies, these rankings attract considerable publicity. As a result, CSR has emerged as an inescapable priority for business leaders in every country. Many companies have already done much to improve the social and environmental consequences of their activities, yet these efforts have not been nearly as productive as they could befor two reasons. First, they pit business against society, when clearly the two are interdependent. Second, they pressure companies to think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways instead of in the way most appropriate to each firms strategy. The fact is, the prevailing approaches to CSR are so fragmented and so disconnected from business and strategy as to obscure many of the greatest opportunities for companies to benefit society. If, instead, corporations were to analyze their prospects for social responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their core business choices, they would discover that CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deedit can be a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage. In this article, we propose a new way to look at the relationship between business and society that does not treat corporate success and social welfare as a zero-sum game. We introduce a framework companies can use to identify all of the effects, both positive and negative, they have on society; determine which ones to address; and suggest effective ways to do so. When looked at strategically, corporate social responsibility can become a source of tremendous social progress, as the business applies its considerable resources, expertise, and insights to activities that benefit society.

Abstract We analyze the creation and capture of private and social value by firms that adopt corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies. Strategic CSR is defined as any responsible activity that allows a firm to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, regardless of motive. To provide a roadmap for managers to accomplish this objective, resource-based theory (RBT) framework is integrated with concepts and tools from economics. CSR is referred to as the private provision of public goods in the new literature on the economics of industrial organization. By linking CSR and sustainable competitive advantage, we can demonstrate how CSR can become a major strategy for competitive advantage which will sustain in the long run. We will discuss the conditions under which CSR can contribute to sustainable competitive advantage.

Research Questions 1. Does CSR gives a company sustainable competitive advantage? 2. Does CSR increases profitability of a company?

Hypothesis The aim of this research is to identify the CSR aspects, which serve as the main instruments of competitive advantages formation.

Literature Review Corporate social responsibility (hereinafter CSR) has become one of the central issues on the agenda of organizations today, but is still a long way from being a centre stage on corporate strategy (Smith, 2003; Stewart, 2006). One of the key problems is the lack of understanding about the impact CSR has on competitiveness (Porter and Kramer, 2006). There are many studies trying to analyze the relationship between CSR and financial performance (Chand and Fraser, 2006; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001), Financial performance or smart practices don't automatically imply long-term competitiveness (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Porter and Van der Linde, 1995; Smith, 2003). The bottom line is that there seems to be a connection between CSR and competitiveness, but the nature of the relationship is unclear (Mackeye t al., 2007; Van De Ven and Jeurissen, 2005). As a conclusion, we argue that CSR and competitiveness relate through a learning and innovation cycle, where corporate values, policies and practices are permanently defined and redefined. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) CSR is one of the frames of reference that tries to shed light on the role business should play in society (Carroll, 1999; Goodpaster, 1983; Sethi, 1975). CSR is approached from different perspectives ,such as social performance (Carroll, 1979; Swanson, 1995), business ethics (Solomon, 1993), corporate governance (Freeman and Evans, 1990), social contract (Donaldson and Dunfee, 2002), stakeholder management (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Lozano, 2002), corporate citizenship( Waddock,2 000; Zadek,2 001), accountability (Elkington, 1998; Valor, 2005) or bottom of the pyramid (Prahalada nd Hammond, 2002). However, some authors argue that in many cases CSR has not been more than a cosmetic effort on the part of companies to respond to societal demands (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Many companies seem to approach CSR solely from a reputation perspective, while CSR is presented in theory as a central business issue that has profound and wide-spread impact on most business operations (Ayuso et al., 2006; Carlislea nd Faulkner, 2005; Portera nd Kramer, 2006; Whetten et al., 2001). One of the key management questions in that debate is whether implementing CSR

affects firm competitiveness (Chand and Fraser, 2006; Draper, 2006; Haigh and Jones, 2006; Handy, 2002; Porter and Kramer, 2006) According to Donaldson and Preston (2008) analysis of CSR definitions there is no universal definition of corporate social responsibility, it generally refers to transparent business practices that are based on ethical values, compliance with legal requirements, and respect for people, communities, and the environment. Thus, beyond making profits, companies are responsible for the totality of their impact on people and the planet. People constitute the companys stakeholders: its employees, customers, business partners, investors, suppliers and vendors, the government, and the community. Increasingly, stakeholders expect that companies should be more environmentally and socially responsible in conducting their business. In the business community, CSR is alternatively referred to as corporate citizenship, which essentially means that a company should be a good neighbor within its host community. According to Porter and Kramer (2006) organizations developed four unique frameworks for conceptualizing and applying corporate social responsibility programs. These are explaining below: Moral Appeals: So many organizations adopted CSR programs because they believed that it was simply the right thing to do. Sustainability: Few organizations chose to adopt CSR as a principle means to ensure the sustainability of operations over the long-term. License to Operate: In this current business world organization adopting this approach recognized the interconnectedness of business operations and larger external regulation set by governments, communities and stakeholders. Reputation: Organizations has to realize that CSR initiatives could be justified on the grounds that they could improve the image of the organization, its brands and its stock.

The Emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility CSR is an important part of many international and local organizations. It helps them to gain competitive advantage with their competitor. But they are not eager to do this types of social

activities situation has forced them to do so. Many companies awoke to it only after being surprised by public responses to issues they had not previously thought were part of their business responsibilities. Nike, for example, faced an extensive consumer boycott after the New York Times and other media outlets reported abusive labor practices at some of its Indonesian suppliers in the early 1990s. Shell Oils decision to sink the Brent Spar, an obsolete oil rig, in the North Sea led to Greenpeace protests in 1995 and to international headlines. Pharmaceutical companies discovered that they were expected to respond to the AIDS pandemic in Africa even though it was far removed from their primary product lines and markets. Fastfood and packaged food companies are now being held responsible for obesity and poor nutrition. Activist organizations of all kinds, both on the right and the left, have grown much more aggressive and effective in bringing public pressure to bear on corporations. Activists may target the most visible or successful companies merely to draw attention to an issue, even if those corporations actually have had little impact on the problem at hand. Nestl, for example, the worlds largest purveyor of bottled water, has become a major target in the global debate about access to fresh water, despite the fact that Nestls bottled water sales consume just 0.0008% of the worlds fresh water supply. The inefficiency of agricultural irrigation, which uses 70% of the worlds supply annually, is a far more pressing issue, but it offers no equally convenient multinational corporation to target. Government regulation increasingly mandates social responsibility reporting. Pending legislation in the UK, for example, would require every publicly listed company to disclose ethical, social, and environmental risks in its annual report. These pressures clearly demonstrate the extent to which external stakeholders are seeking to hold companies accountable for social issues and highlight the potentially large financial risks for any firm whose conduct is deemed unacceptable. While businesses have awakened to these risks, they are much less clear on what to do about them. In fact, the most common corporate response has been neither strategic nor

operational but cosmetic: public relations and media campaigns, the centerpieces of which are often glossy CSR reports that showcase companies social and environmental good deeds. Of the 250 largest multinational corporations, 64% published CSR reports in 2005, either within their annual report or, for most, in separate sustainability reportssupporting a new cottage industry of report writers. Vital issues for CSR initiatives for small business

There are many issues involved in practical CSR activities in a small business and these initiatives are likely to be of interest to personnel in larger firms as well.

Improving the environment: Reduce the consumption of energy, water and other natural resources, and emissions of hazardous substances and use these resources according to the needs and wants. Try to produce or use recycled and recyclable materials, increase the durability of products, and minimize packaging through effective design -reduce, reuse and recycle. Use green (i.e., renewable energy) power electricity suppliers and energy-efficient lighting that will reduce the consumption of electricity. Establish an environmental management system with objectives and procedures for evaluating progress, minimizing negative impacts and transferring good practices.

Improving human resource management practices: Establish policies that will be preferable and helpful for the health and safety of all employees and make the policies known to employees. Consult employees on about how to knob a recession in business (e.g. offer the option of all staff taking pay cuts or reduced hours instead of layoffs). When layoffs or closures cannot avoid than offer outplacement services, retraining and severance benefits.

Ensure a healthy workplace (e.g. implement a smoking ban or drug and alcohol abuse support program); and provide exercise facilities that will help them keep healthy.

Promoting diversity and human rights: Have to ensure that all staff knows that there are explicit policies against discrimination in hiring, salary, promotion, training or termination of any employee on the basis of gender, race, age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or religion. Try to avoid insulting employees in their workplace on the basis of gender, race, age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or religion. When hiring, think creatively about where to advertise the job and whether there are any local employability schemes (e.g., run by a local council or employer) to help find work for people who are home-less or disabled and it will be helpful for those poor effected people. Always has to be concern about human rights.

Helping the community: Encourage and motivate employee volunteering in the community and with financial contributions and help in kind. Contribute some product or services available free or at cost to charities and community groups. Look for opportunities to make excess product and surplus equipment available to local schools, charities, community groups and other sector for the progress of the peoples livelihood.

Significance of CSR Now a days many companies are realizing that in order to stay productive, competitive, and relevant in a rapidly changing business world, they have to become socially responsible. In the last decade, globalization has blurred national borders, and technology has accelerated time and masked distance. Given this sea change in the corporate environment, companies want to increase their ability to manage their profits and risks, and to protect the reputation of their brands. Because of globalization, there is also fierce competition for skilled employees, investors, and consumer loyalty. How a company relates with its workers, its host communities, and the marketplace can greatly contribute to the sustainability of its business success.

Key potential benefits for firms implementing CSR include: Improved reputation management: Organizations that perform well with regard to CSR can build their reputation but if they cannot does it properly than it might hamper their reputation, or brand equity. Even for firms that do not have direct retail exposure through different brand their reputation for addressing CSR issues as a supply chain partnerboth good and bad can be crucial commercially. Enhanced ability to recruit, develop and retain staff: This can be the direct result of pride in the companys products and practices, or of introducing improved human resources practices, such as family-friendly policies. Company has to recruit skillful staff and also has to retain their experienced staffs properly. Improved innovation, competitiveness and market positioning: Drawing feedback from diverse stakeholders can be a rich source of ideas for new products, processes and markets, resulting in competitive advantages. For example, a firm may become certified to environmental and social standards so it can become a supplier to particular retailers. The history of good business has always been one of being alert to trends, innovation, and responding to markets. Increasingly, mainstream advertising features the environmental or social benefits of products.

Better anticipation and management of an ever-expanding spectrum of risk: Effectively managing legal, social, environmental, economic, political and other risks in an increasingly complex market environment, with greater oversight and stakeholder scrutiny of corporate activities, can improve the security of supply and overall market stability. Considering the interests of parties concerned about a firms impact is one way of better anticipating and managing risk. Enhanced operational efficiencies and cost savings: These flow involves to improve efficiencies identified through a systematic approach to management that includes continuous improvement. For example, assessing the environmental and energy aspects of an operation can reveal opportunities for turning waste streams into revenue streams (wood chips into particle board, for example) and for system-wide reductions in energy use, and costs. Improved ability to attract and build effective and efficient supply chain relationships: A firm is vulnerable to the weakest link in its supply chain. Like-minded companies can form profitable long-term business relationships by improving standards, and thereby reducing risks. Larger firms can stimulate smaller firms with whom they do business to implement a CSR approach. For example, some huge apparel retailers require their suppliers to comply with worker codes and standards. Enhanced ability to address change: A company with its ear to the ground through regular stakeholder dialogue is in a better position to anticipate and respond to regulatory, economic, social and environmental changes that may occur. Increasingly, firms use CSR as radar to detect evolving trends in the market. More robust social license to operate in the community: Improved citizen and stakeholder understanding of the firm and its objectives and activities translate into improved stakeholder relations. This, in turn, may evolve into more robust and enduring public, private and civil society alliances (all of which relate closely to CSR reputation, discussed above). CSR can help build social capital.

Access to capital: Financial institutions are increasingly incorporating social and environmental criteria into their assessment of projects. When making decisions about where to place their money, investors are looking for indicators of effective CSR management. A business plan incorporating a good Improved relations with regulators: In a number of jurisdictions, governments have expedited approval processes for firms that have undertaken social and environmental activities beyond those required by regulation. In some countries, governments use CSR indicators in deciding on procurement or export assistance contracts. This is being done because governments recognize that without an increase in business sector engagement, government sustainability goals cannot be reached. A catalyst for responsible consumption: Changing unsustainable patterns of consumption is widely seen as an important driver to achieving sustainable development. Responsible consumerism is not exclusively about changing consumer preferences. It is also about what goods are supplied in the marketplace, their relationship to consumer rights and sustainability issues, and how regulatory authorities mediate the relationship between producers and consumers.

Practice of CSR in Asia Pacific and other regions While sustainability is essentially a global concept, CSR has developed differently in different parts of the world. This is quiet normal, because to be effective CSR needs to flow naturally from the social contracts that define the relationship between business and society. These social contracts, moreover, derive from distinct cultural, economic, and governance models. The rise of a homegrown version of CSR across Asia is therefore developing with both similarities and differences to that practiced in the rest of the world. The Asia Pacific context is distinct. There are long-standing traditions of respect for family and social networks, and high value placed on relationships, social stability and education. Diverse religions and cultures also bring distinct attitudes towards community social behavior and engagement as well as support and philanthropic contributions. Governments in the region also

play distinct roles There are unique Asian realities that appear to be critical in shaping regional approaches to a sustainable and responsible business model, particularly in comparison to the US and Europe. These distinct features shape the way CSR is defined in Asia, and also impact on how Made-in-Asia CSR will influence global perspectives on sustainability.

Asia is more diverse in culturally, linguistically, and economically than other regions of the world. First, as addressed below, it is a mistake to refer to one version of Asian CSR because it is defined differently across the region. Second, this means that Asia, taken as a whole, is a fascinating laboratory in which various approaches and models can be tested. Of course Asia is also experiencing the most rapid economic growth of any of the worlds regions. The promise and reality of rising living standards remains foremost in the minds of policymakers and businesses. This contrasts sharply with Western perspectives, which are focused more on maintaining high living standards.

Asia, more so than other regions, includes a dynamic mix of developed and developing economies. Coupled with the rise of South-South trade, this positions Asia to influence other regions of the world on a range of issues, because it may have more credibility than Europe or the US. Asias rising economic power coincides with rising political power. China, India and Russia are poised to assert ever more influence in the coming decades, meaning that Asian perspectives on CSR may also have more influence on global definitions of the concept. Finally, Asian businesses and policymakers are substantially less inclined than Western companies to rely on established international principles and standards on social and environmental questions. Some of this results from a sense that these standards are in fact not universal, but rather developed primarily by and for Western interests. Some of this reluctance also results from the desire to prioritize economic growth over other factors. This also reflects cultural affinities for consensus building, as opposed to the more legalistic approaches favored in the West. Some example of CSR activities of different companies of different region of the world is given below:

CSR practices in Bangladeshi perspective A number of corporations are now following an increased commitment to CSR beyond just profit making and compliance with regulation. Organizations such as

CARE Bangladesh, Katalyst and Bangladesh Enterprises (BEI) are working at the forefront of CSR activities in Bangladesh. These organizations are preparing Corporate Social Audit catering to small/Medium enterprises. While these initiatives are more discretionary in their nature, they have resulted in the creation of jobs and value-added services to communities that BATA and CARE are showcasing as CSR programs in action.

BAT (British American Tobacco) **Afforestation: Bat has started programme when they joined hands with the Forest Department in 1980 to conserve the forests and combat the negative impacts of climate change. Till now, they have contributed around 67.5 million saplings throughout Bangladesh. This probably makes our imitative the largest private sector driven afforestation programme in the country. Our endeavors have received several awards both at the National and Local Government levels. They will distribute four million saplings in 2011. **Safe drinking water: Probaho for millions of people in Bangladesh, the only available drinking water is laced with arsenic and therefore extremely hazardous to health. Having recognised the gravity of the issue, they stepped forward with the Probaho, Bangla for flow, project. Through Probaho, we aim to provide rural communities with safe drinking water. This initiative is also aligned with the Governments aim to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MGDs). Using Government approved community based water filtration technology, our 18 water filtration plants in Manikganj, Satkhira, Meherpur, Kushtia, Jhenidah, Tangail, Kurigram, Lalmonirhat and Chuadanga districts provide

approximately 95,000 litres of pure drinking water for 47,000 people every day. CSR practices in Asia perspective Tata Steel has, from its inception took various initiatives in education that have catered to the needs of youth in rural and urban areas alike. Tata Steel supports the right to free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of fourteen years and supports initiatives to improve literacy levels amongst adults. The Company also wishes to promote the study of science, to promote understanding of its product and help to develop qualified people for industry in the future.

Disaster Risk Education at Schools the best Practices and Principles for APEC (the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation) Member Economies. Guidelines and best practices for post-disaster damage and loss assessment CSR practices in other region perspective Wal-Mart, the U.S.-based retail chain, has announced major changes in how it plans to use the supply chain to improve social and environmental conditions, and has plans to make its stores entirely powered by renewable energy. Philips, a Dutch electronics firm, has launched a range of strategies built around responding to sustainable development challenges. Its Green Flagship and Lighting the Bottom of the Pyramid campaigns are examples.

Competitive Advantage Competitiveness is a multidimensional concept that can be used at country, industry and firm levels (Ambasthaa nd Momaya,2 004). In general terms, competitiveness is described as the strength of an organization in comparison with its competitors (Murths and Lenway, 1998). John Kay described firm competitiveness in terms of four factors: (a) the capacity to innovate, (b) key internal and external relation-ships, (c) reputation and (d) strategic assets (Kay, 1993). Competitiveness must account for more dynamic firm capabilities such as flexibility, adaptability, quality or marketing (Barney, 1991), understanding competitiveness not solely as productivity, but as the ability of a company to design, produce and/or market products superior to those offered by competitors, considering the price and non-price qualities (D'Cruz and Rugman, 1992). Literature on CSR and competitiveness is rare, although it has grown exponentially. In this current competitive business world corporate social responsibility (CSR), a firms commitment to maximize long-term economic, societal and environmental well being through business practices, policies and resources, is a strategic imperative. Encouraged by the thinking of leading strategy, management and marketing scholars (e.g., Kotler and Lee 2005; Lemon, Roberts, Winer, and Raghubir 2010; Mahoney, McGahan, and Pitelis 2009; Margolis and Walsh 2003; Porter and Kramer 2006), most forward-thinking firms across the globe are approaching CSR as not merely their ethical responsibility to society and the environment, but instead a way to achieve their strategic objectives while at the same time bettering the world (i.e., creating joint value for the firm and society). In line with this emerging perspective, more and more companies are engaging in initiatives that try to improve public health, safety, the environment or community well being through the active participation of key stakeholder groups such as consumers. Kotler and Lee (2005) call such initiatives corporate social marketing initiatives, labeling them best of breed among alternative corporate social initiatives in terms of their ability to improve consumer well being while at the same time helping achieve strategic goals such as market development and increased sales. For example, the personal care brand Dove, in partnership with the Girl Scouts, has an initiative aimed at a critical social issue facing its consumers and their families: pervasive low self-esteem among adolescent and preadolescent girls, with accompanying risky behaviors such as smoking, eating disorders, and suicidal tendencies (Unilever 2010; Girl Scouts 2010). This program, which comprises age-appropriate

curricular and workshops that inspire girls - also Dove consumers to embrace a wider definition of beauty, build a strong sense of self, and take care of their bodies and minds, has greatly boosted the popularity and sales of Dove products (Cone and Darigan 2010). An important strategic objective for many firms/brands is to gain a competitive advantage over their often alarming rivals. Thus, it is not surprising that a recent large scale study of CFOs, investment professionals, CSR managers (McKinsey Quarterly 2009) revealed that strengthening competitive position is a key impetus for firms to engage in strategic CSR. Yet, even as the debate on CSR has shifted decisively from whether to how (Smith 2003), there exists little conceptual clarity regarding when, how and why firms might be able to achieve their strategic goals, such as gaining a competitive advantage, through their CSR actions. This is due in part to the unequal perspectives the different disciplines have brought to their examination of strategic CSR. Researchers in management (Encompassing strategy and organizational behavior) have typically focused on macro and micro level issues such as the link between CSR and firm financial performance (e.g., Godfrey, Merrill and Hansen 2009; Margolis and Walsh 2003), finding such a link to, notably, is positive but ambiguous. In contrast, marketing researchers have adopted a markedly micro-level perspective to understand when, why and how consumers respond positively to CSR, engaging in pro-brand behaviors (e.g., Du, Sen and Bhattacharya 2008; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Consequently, while the notion that CSR can lead to competitive advantage is implicit to current thought in management, there is slight insight into the actual consumer-level dynamics underlying a companys ability to use CSR as a strategic competitive lever. Conversely, while marketing has focused on the when, why and how of customer reactions, extant CSR work in this discipline has focused on single firm/brand contexts (e.g., Sen, Bhattacharya and Korschun 2006; Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006), neglecting the role of competition in the strategic returns to CSR. Key to sustainable competitive advantage is to link CSR to the strengths of the business. Michael Porter and Mark Kramer state in Harvard Business Review that if corporations were to analyze their prospects for social responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their core business choices, they would discover that CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deedit can be a sources of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage.(December 2006).

One example of a corporate pursuing this approach is Coca-Cola. The main important ingredient in Coca-Cola is water. Coca-cola is working on making clean water available to the communities it serves through partnerships with organizations such as the WWF, US Agency for International Development and the Gates Foundation. An example in the hi-tech industry is IBM. IBM the computer giant links its business model and do-good efforts by its promised to build a smarter planet. They demonstrate its use of technology as the linchpin for solutions for smart traffic, smart food and health care to smart energy and infrastructure.

The bottom line is that there seems to be a connection between CSR and competitiveness, but the nature of the relationship is unclear, as financial performance or firm value may not automatically imply long-term competitiveness (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Porter and Kramer, 2006; Van De Ven and Jeurissen, 2005).

Competitiveness at a firm level is defined or limited by five forces of competition, namely (1) threat of new entrants, (2) bargaining power of suppliers, (3) bargaining power of costumers,(4) threat of substitute products and services and (5) strength of the firm against current competitors. Thus, some of the key determinants to firm competitiveness center on issues such as brand equity, reputation for innovation, to name a few, and that these issues are strongly influenced by CSR. On the other hand, the few that do not have specific CSR strategies, such as Google, argue that CSR, human rights and sustainability values are deeply embedded in the core identity of the organization and are therefore integrated in most business processes Competitiveness by adopting three possible strategies: (a) cost leadership, where the firm would reduce costs to be price competitive; (b) differentiation, where the firm would focus on differentiating from competitors on product and/or services and (c) focus strategies, where the company would focus on specific products and/or services in which it enjoys a competitive advantage.

Mintzberg suggested companies should aim at building institutional capacities and competencies, so that they have the resources to understand, confront and respond to unexpected changes in the market and the context. Company valuation is how the market currently tries to measure and define the competitiveness of a given company, regardless of whether the valuation is carried out for buying or selling operations, an immediate anticipating stock market behavior of listed companies or for strategic reflection and planning (Copeland et al., 2000). Nevertheless, none of these methods include explicit or direct measures of CSR. All valuations included an in-depth qualitative analysis of intangibles. These measurements or valuation so fin tangibles indirectly accounted for some CSR issues, through aspects such as management adaptability, governance, risks, fore-casts, core competencies, potential for partnerships, strategy or government actions among others. Regard, surprisingly a significant portion of valuations and recommendation seems to be based on the opinion and expertise of the analyst per-forming the valuation, rather than on objective ratios and measurement not made explicit, standardized or quantified. That is, CSR is not considered a specific topic of evaluation by financial analysts, nor does it have accepted indicators across different analysts, but it is nevertheless very much considered as a transversal issues specifically in term so f non-tangible issues such as corporate reputation, brand equity and internal and external relationships We propose that image and reputation make the connection between CSR and competitiveness through three management processes: (a) strategy, (b) stakeholder management and (3) accountability. That is, adopting a CSR strategy has an impact on identity and branding, which has a direct impact on competitiveness as it forces sustain-able development in corporate vision through corporate strategy (Mintzberg, 1987, 1993), improves the understanding of the complexity of the competitive environment and strengthens relationships with key stakeholders through stakeholder management (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Kay, 1993), and improves the transparency of the organization through accountability management processes (Elkington, 1998; Pruzan, 2001; Valor, 2005). Finally, reputation acts as a fundamental driver to implement CSR as it is currently an accepted and valued intangible asset (Schnietz and Epstein, 2005) as well as one of the key issues in risk management (Van De Ven and Jeurissen, 2005).

Which in turn, build corporate reputation, image and identity (Fan, 2005). Thus, reputation becomes a driver not only to initiate CSR approaches in firms, but also to drive the process inside the company. The objective from a company perspective when adopting Current management practices, particularly in the field of CSR, are based on outputs rather than processes, which creates difficulties for understanding and managing the relationship between CSR and competitiveness, as is based on processes of strategic reflection and implementation, stakeholder management and accountability. Furthermore, we propose that reputation is a key driver in framing and embedding CSR in corporate strategy, so that the debate should not be about reputation or competitiveness, but rather on how to best use reputation as a driver to embed CSR in core business processes that have a direct impact on competitiveness.

Reference 1. Ambastha, A. and K. Momaya: 2004, 'Competitiveness of Firms: Review of Theory, Frameworks and Models', Singapore Management Review 26(1), 45-61. 2. Ayuso, S., M. A. Rodriguez and J. E. Ricart: 2006, 'Responsible Competitiveness at the "Micro Level of the Firm Using Stakeholder Dialogue as a Source for New Ideas: a Dynamic Capability Underlying Sustain-able Innovation', Corporate Governance6 (4). 475-490. 3. Barney, J.: 1991, 'Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage', Journal of Management17 (1), 99-120. 4. Carlisle,Y . M. and D. O. Faulkner:2 005, 'The Strategy of Reputation', Strategic Change1 4(8), 413-422. 5. Carroll, A. B.: 1979, 'A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance', Academy of Management Review4 (4), 497-505. 6. Carroll, A. B.: 1999, 'Corporate Social Responsibility', Business and Society 38(3), 268295.

7. Chand, M . and S. Fraser:20 06, 'The Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance: Industry Type as a Boundary Condition', The Business Review, Cambridge5 (1), 240-245. 8. Copeland, T. E., T. Koller and J. Murrin: 2000, Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies, 3rd Edition (Wiley, New York). 9. D'Cruz, J. and A. Rugman: 1992, New Concepts for Canadian Competitiveness (Kodak, Canada). 10. Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 2002, 'Ties that Bind in Business Ethics: Social Contracts and Why they Matter', Journal of Banking& Finance 26(9), 1853-1865. 11. Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, 'The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications', Academy of Management Review2 0, 65-91. 12. Draper, S.: 2006, 'Corporate Responsibility and Competitiveness at the Meso Level: Key Models for Delivering Sector-Level Corporate Responsibility', Corporate Governance6 (4), 409-419. 13. Elkington, J.: 1998, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business (New Society Publishers) 14. Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman Publishing, Boston). 15. Freeman, R. E. and W. M. Evan: 1990, 'Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation', Journal of Behavioral Economics1 9(4), 337-359. 16. Haigh, M. and M. T. Jones: 2006, 'The Divers of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Review', The Business Review, Cambridge5 (2), 245-251. 17. Handy, C: 2002, 'What's a Business for', Harvard Business Review 80(12), 49-60.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi