Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders, Globalization, and Sustainable Value Creation Third Edition Solution Manual
Learn faster with Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders, Globalization, and Sustainable Value Creation Third Edition Solution Manual, a comprehensive solution manual for effective studying.
Alexander Wilson
Contributor
4.3
114
about 2 months ago
Preview (31 of 127)
Sign in to access the full document!
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
1
SECTION II
TEACHING RESOURCES BY CHAPTER
Part I: Overview and Intent
Section II of this Instructor’s Manual provides “Faculty Notes and Discussion” by
chapter, concluding with answers to the end-of-chapter “Questions for Discussion and Review.”
We begin with the overview of Part I of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, which
highlights the scope of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Chapter 1 identifies the different viewpoints of CSR and then shows why CSR is of
growing concern to business students and leaders. Though businesses are economic entities that
exist to further the financial interests of their owners, this is not their sole concern. Without the
balance of a multi-stakeholder approach, firms can become exploitive, anti-social, and corrupt—
losing legitimacy and their ability to pursue the owners’ economic goals over the long term.
Arguments for and against CSR are presented along with trends that are propelling CSR to a
greater prominence in corporate and strategic thinking.
Chapter 2 puts CSR into a strategic context by explaining resource and industry
perspectives on strategy. Then the chapter turns to the stakeholder perspective and the need to
identify and prioritize them. In particular, this chapter presents the stakeholder model around
which the book is structured. The remainder of the chapter looks at integrating strategy and CSR,
creating a strategic CSR perspective that is needed for long term sustainability.
Chapter 3 asks the provocative question, “How much does CSR matter?” Who is
responsible for CSR? The organization? Stakeholders? To create a contrast around this question,
the views of Milton Friedman and Charles Handy are presented. This discussion is followed by
an extended look at Walmart, its varying impact on different constituents, and its tentative steps
in relation to CSR.
Chapter 4 introduces the idea of strategy through a strategic lens. The chapter argues that
strategy is likely to be both more effective and more sustainable if strategy passes through a CSR
filter that better attunes the firm to its environment and its constituents. Then, the driving social-
technological and economic forces behind the growing importance of CSR are discussed.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
1
SECTION II
TEACHING RESOURCES BY CHAPTER
Part I: Overview and Intent
Section II of this Instructor’s Manual provides “Faculty Notes and Discussion” by
chapter, concluding with answers to the end-of-chapter “Questions for Discussion and Review.”
We begin with the overview of Part I of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, which
highlights the scope of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Chapter 1 identifies the different viewpoints of CSR and then shows why CSR is of
growing concern to business students and leaders. Though businesses are economic entities that
exist to further the financial interests of their owners, this is not their sole concern. Without the
balance of a multi-stakeholder approach, firms can become exploitive, anti-social, and corrupt—
losing legitimacy and their ability to pursue the owners’ economic goals over the long term.
Arguments for and against CSR are presented along with trends that are propelling CSR to a
greater prominence in corporate and strategic thinking.
Chapter 2 puts CSR into a strategic context by explaining resource and industry
perspectives on strategy. Then the chapter turns to the stakeholder perspective and the need to
identify and prioritize them. In particular, this chapter presents the stakeholder model around
which the book is structured. The remainder of the chapter looks at integrating strategy and CSR,
creating a strategic CSR perspective that is needed for long term sustainability.
Chapter 3 asks the provocative question, “How much does CSR matter?” Who is
responsible for CSR? The organization? Stakeholders? To create a contrast around this question,
the views of Milton Friedman and Charles Handy are presented. This discussion is followed by
an extended look at Walmart, its varying impact on different constituents, and its tentative steps
in relation to CSR.
Chapter 4 introduces the idea of strategy through a strategic lens. The chapter argues that
strategy is likely to be both more effective and more sustainable if strategy passes through a CSR
filter that better attunes the firm to its environment and its constituents. Then, the driving social-
technological and economic forces behind the growing importance of CSR are discussed.
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
1
SECTION II
TEACHING RESOURCES BY CHAPTER
Part I: Overview and Intent
Section II of this Instructor’s Manual provides “Faculty Notes and Discussion” by
chapter, concluding with answers to the end-of-chapter “Questions for Discussion and Review.”
We begin with the overview of Part I of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, which
highlights the scope of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Chapter 1 identifies the different viewpoints of CSR and then shows why CSR is of
growing concern to business students and leaders. Though businesses are economic entities that
exist to further the financial interests of their owners, this is not their sole concern. Without the
balance of a multi-stakeholder approach, firms can become exploitive, anti-social, and corrupt—
losing legitimacy and their ability to pursue the owners’ economic goals over the long term.
Arguments for and against CSR are presented along with trends that are propelling CSR to a
greater prominence in corporate and strategic thinking.
Chapter 2 puts CSR into a strategic context by explaining resource and industry
perspectives on strategy. Then the chapter turns to the stakeholder perspective and the need to
identify and prioritize them. In particular, this chapter presents the stakeholder model around
which the book is structured. The remainder of the chapter looks at integrating strategy and CSR,
creating a strategic CSR perspective that is needed for long term sustainability.
Chapter 3 asks the provocative question, “How much does CSR matter?” Who is
responsible for CSR? The organization? Stakeholders? To create a contrast around this question,
the views of Milton Friedman and Charles Handy are presented. This discussion is followed by
an extended look at Walmart, its varying impact on different constituents, and its tentative steps
in relation to CSR.
Chapter 4 introduces the idea of strategy through a strategic lens. The chapter argues that
strategy is likely to be both more effective and more sustainable if strategy passes through a CSR
filter that better attunes the firm to its environment and its constituents. Then, the driving social-
technological and economic forces behind the growing importance of CSR are discussed.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
1
SECTION II
TEACHING RESOURCES BY CHAPTER
Part I: Overview and Intent
Section II of this Instructor’s Manual provides “Faculty Notes and Discussion” by
chapter, concluding with answers to the end-of-chapter “Questions for Discussion and Review.”
We begin with the overview of Part I of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, which
highlights the scope of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Chapter 1 identifies the different viewpoints of CSR and then shows why CSR is of
growing concern to business students and leaders. Though businesses are economic entities that
exist to further the financial interests of their owners, this is not their sole concern. Without the
balance of a multi-stakeholder approach, firms can become exploitive, anti-social, and corrupt—
losing legitimacy and their ability to pursue the owners’ economic goals over the long term.
Arguments for and against CSR are presented along with trends that are propelling CSR to a
greater prominence in corporate and strategic thinking.
Chapter 2 puts CSR into a strategic context by explaining resource and industry
perspectives on strategy. Then the chapter turns to the stakeholder perspective and the need to
identify and prioritize them. In particular, this chapter presents the stakeholder model around
which the book is structured. The remainder of the chapter looks at integrating strategy and CSR,
creating a strategic CSR perspective that is needed for long term sustainability.
Chapter 3 asks the provocative question, “How much does CSR matter?” Who is
responsible for CSR? The organization? Stakeholders? To create a contrast around this question,
the views of Milton Friedman and Charles Handy are presented. This discussion is followed by
an extended look at Walmart, its varying impact on different constituents, and its tentative steps
in relation to CSR.
Chapter 4 introduces the idea of strategy through a strategic lens. The chapter argues that
strategy is likely to be both more effective and more sustainable if strategy passes through a CSR
filter that better attunes the firm to its environment and its constituents. Then, the driving social-
technological and economic forces behind the growing importance of CSR are discussed.
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
2
Chapter 5 emphasizes the integration of CSR into both strategy and, ultimately, the
culture of the organization. This cultural integration creates a sustainable CSR perspective
through the firm. The bulk of the chapter then addresses the implementation of CSR in the short
to medium term and in the long-run.
CHAPTER 1
WHAT IS CSR?
FACULTY NOTES AND DISCUSSION
Organizations are the collective structures used by people to pursue common goals. In
general, these organizations come in three broad forms: Businesses, governments, and nonprofits
(or Non-governmental Organizations, NGOs). Businesses exist to pursue profit with the intention
of making their owners wealthy; governments (at least in democratic societies) respond to the
will of their citizens; and, nonprofits or NGOs meet the needs of people in society when the
profit motive of business or the political will of government is lacking.
Though organizations are not legally compelled to be “socially responsible”—even if
society could agree on a universal definition—societal expectations become embodied in
tradition, laws, agency interpretations, and court rulings that form a set of expectations. Thus, we
arrive at two central questions of concern to CSR:
• What is the relationship between a business and the societies within which it
operates?
• What responsibilities do businesses owe society to self-regulate their actions in
pursuit of profit?
These questions grow in importance as businesses grow in importance to society.
Ultimately, it is business organizations that provide the most basic necessities of societal
survival, including much of the wealth that funds government and nonprofit activities. Because
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
2
Chapter 5 emphasizes the integration of CSR into both strategy and, ultimately, the
culture of the organization. This cultural integration creates a sustainable CSR perspective
through the firm. The bulk of the chapter then addresses the implementation of CSR in the short
to medium term and in the long-run.
CHAPTER 1
WHAT IS CSR?
FACULTY NOTES AND DISCUSSION
Organizations are the collective structures used by people to pursue common goals. In
general, these organizations come in three broad forms: Businesses, governments, and nonprofits
(or Non-governmental Organizations, NGOs). Businesses exist to pursue profit with the intention
of making their owners wealthy; governments (at least in democratic societies) respond to the
will of their citizens; and, nonprofits or NGOs meet the needs of people in society when the
profit motive of business or the political will of government is lacking.
Though organizations are not legally compelled to be “socially responsible”—even if
society could agree on a universal definition—societal expectations become embodied in
tradition, laws, agency interpretations, and court rulings that form a set of expectations. Thus, we
arrive at two central questions of concern to CSR:
• What is the relationship between a business and the societies within which it
operates?
• What responsibilities do businesses owe society to self-regulate their actions in
pursuit of profit?
These questions grow in importance as businesses grow in importance to society.
Ultimately, it is business organizations that provide the most basic necessities of societal
survival, including much of the wealth that funds government and nonprofit activities. Because
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
2
Chapter 5 emphasizes the integration of CSR into both strategy and, ultimately, the
culture of the organization. This cultural integration creates a sustainable CSR perspective
through the firm. The bulk of the chapter then addresses the implementation of CSR in the short
to medium term and in the long-run.
CHAPTER 1
WHAT IS CSR?
FACULTY NOTES AND DISCUSSION
Organizations are the collective structures used by people to pursue common goals. In
general, these organizations come in three broad forms: Businesses, governments, and nonprofits
(or Non-governmental Organizations, NGOs). Businesses exist to pursue profit with the intention
of making their owners wealthy; governments (at least in democratic societies) respond to the
will of their citizens; and, nonprofits or NGOs meet the needs of people in society when the
profit motive of business or the political will of government is lacking.
Though organizations are not legally compelled to be “socially responsible”—even if
society could agree on a universal definition—societal expectations become embodied in
tradition, laws, agency interpretations, and court rulings that form a set of expectations. Thus, we
arrive at two central questions of concern to CSR:
• What is the relationship between a business and the societies within which it
operates?
• What responsibilities do businesses owe society to self-regulate their actions in
pursuit of profit?
These questions grow in importance as businesses grow in importance to society.
Ultimately, it is business organizations that provide the most basic necessities of societal
survival, including much of the wealth that funds government and nonprofit activities. Because
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
2
Chapter 5 emphasizes the integration of CSR into both strategy and, ultimately, the
culture of the organization. This cultural integration creates a sustainable CSR perspective
through the firm. The bulk of the chapter then addresses the implementation of CSR in the short
to medium term and in the long-run.
CHAPTER 1
WHAT IS CSR?
FACULTY NOTES AND DISCUSSION
Organizations are the collective structures used by people to pursue common goals. In
general, these organizations come in three broad forms: Businesses, governments, and nonprofits
(or Non-governmental Organizations, NGOs). Businesses exist to pursue profit with the intention
of making their owners wealthy; governments (at least in democratic societies) respond to the
will of their citizens; and, nonprofits or NGOs meet the needs of people in society when the
profit motive of business or the political will of government is lacking.
Though organizations are not legally compelled to be “socially responsible”—even if
society could agree on a universal definition—societal expectations become embodied in
tradition, laws, agency interpretations, and court rulings that form a set of expectations. Thus, we
arrive at two central questions of concern to CSR:
• What is the relationship between a business and the societies within which it
operates?
• What responsibilities do businesses owe society to self-regulate their actions in
pursuit of profit?
These questions grow in importance as businesses grow in importance to society.
Ultimately, it is business organizations that provide the most basic necessities of societal
survival, including much of the wealth that funds government and nonprofit activities. Because
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
3
of this broad reaching impact of business corporations, CSR has emerged as a study to better
understand the answers to the above questions.
Simply put, the narrow view suggests that businesses are only obligated to create wealth
for their owners. A broader view expects them to create wealth for owners, but to do so in ways
that are deemed acceptable to society. CSR covers the relationship between corporations (or
other large organizations) and the societies with which they interact.
The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and
discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time.1
Archie B. Carroll, 1979
CSR is, therefore, a fluid concept. Importantly, it is both a means and an end. It is an
integral element of the firm’s strategy, a way of maintaining its legitimacy in the larger society
by bringing stakeholder concerns to the foreground. At the same time, a firm’s CSR reflects how
well it is able to navigate stakeholder concerns while implementing its business model. CSR
means valuing the inter-dependent relationships that exist among businesses, their stakeholder
groups, the economic system, and the communities within which they exist. CSR is a means of
discussing the obligations a business has to its immediate society; a way of proposing policy
ideas on how those obligations can be met; as well as a tool by which the mutual benefits for
meeting those obligations can be identified. Simply put, CSR addresses a company’s
relationships with its stakeholders.
Corporate Strategy and CSR
CSR is (or, at least, should be) an integral part of an organization’s strategy. Strategic
plans and their implementation must past through a CSR Filter to understand the likely impact on
multiple stakeholders. Otherwise, reputation, legal, financial, or other consequences may impede,
even undermine the organization’s plans. And, when perceived violations of societal
expectations occur—even when corporate actions are “legally permissible”—actions against the
1 Archie B. Carroll, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance,’ Academy of Management
Review, 1979, Vol. 4, No. 4, p500.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
3
of this broad reaching impact of business corporations, CSR has emerged as a study to better
understand the answers to the above questions.
Simply put, the narrow view suggests that businesses are only obligated to create wealth
for their owners. A broader view expects them to create wealth for owners, but to do so in ways
that are deemed acceptable to society. CSR covers the relationship between corporations (or
other large organizations) and the societies with which they interact.
The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and
discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time.1
Archie B. Carroll, 1979
CSR is, therefore, a fluid concept. Importantly, it is both a means and an end. It is an
integral element of the firm’s strategy, a way of maintaining its legitimacy in the larger society
by bringing stakeholder concerns to the foreground. At the same time, a firm’s CSR reflects how
well it is able to navigate stakeholder concerns while implementing its business model. CSR
means valuing the inter-dependent relationships that exist among businesses, their stakeholder
groups, the economic system, and the communities within which they exist. CSR is a means of
discussing the obligations a business has to its immediate society; a way of proposing policy
ideas on how those obligations can be met; as well as a tool by which the mutual benefits for
meeting those obligations can be identified. Simply put, CSR addresses a company’s
relationships with its stakeholders.
Corporate Strategy and CSR
CSR is (or, at least, should be) an integral part of an organization’s strategy. Strategic
plans and their implementation must past through a CSR Filter to understand the likely impact on
multiple stakeholders. Otherwise, reputation, legal, financial, or other consequences may impede,
even undermine the organization’s plans. And, when perceived violations of societal
expectations occur—even when corporate actions are “legally permissible”—actions against the
1 Archie B. Carroll, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance,’ Academy of Management
Review, 1979, Vol. 4, No. 4, p500.
Loading page 4...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
4
firm may range from legislative or court actions (think of the Standard Oil Trust) to protests from
Greenpeace or other activist groups.
What CSR Is and Is Not
CSR embraces the range of economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary actions and
obligations that directly or indirectly affect the future economic performance of the firm (see
Figure 1.1). Carroll suggests a hierarchy wherein discretionary issues that appear abusive may
become ethical considerations. Allowed to continue long enough or over a large enough number
of potential claimants and ethical issues may become legal ones. At the extreme, this hierarchy
of CSR issues can eventually lead to economic impact, whether by formal societal restraints
(such as laws or regulations) or less formal consumer boycotts.
Legal compliance is a necessary minimum condition for CSR. But, legal compliance does
not assure that the firm’s actions will be seen as ethical or proper. Often, actions that were
legal—even socially tolerated—may become unacceptable, even illegal, in a different time or
place. For example, consider the history of race- or gender-based discrimination. Both were
widely accepted by society (though certainly not by those affected!) in the 1940s and 1950s. But,
with the greater political activism of later years, these widespread practices were increasingly
seen as unethical, until eventually they became illegal through legislative actions and court
interpretations.
The Evolution of CSR
CSR is not a new or sudden phenomenon. Early writings in the Middle East and China at
the dawn of written history report standards, expectations, and rules for commerce. Consumer
boycotts appeared in England, for example, in the 1790s in response to slave-harvested sugar,
actions deemed unacceptable by segments of society. Even today, one can hardly pick up a
newspaper without reading about some CSR-related complaint about businesses, ranging from
the serious ecological damage of oil spills to more mundane matters.
TEACHING NOTE: It may be a useful exercise to ask students to identify current
issues from local newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, or other business periodicals as the
basis of a classroom discussion that illustrates the timeliness and immediacy of CSR.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
4
firm may range from legislative or court actions (think of the Standard Oil Trust) to protests from
Greenpeace or other activist groups.
What CSR Is and Is Not
CSR embraces the range of economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary actions and
obligations that directly or indirectly affect the future economic performance of the firm (see
Figure 1.1). Carroll suggests a hierarchy wherein discretionary issues that appear abusive may
become ethical considerations. Allowed to continue long enough or over a large enough number
of potential claimants and ethical issues may become legal ones. At the extreme, this hierarchy
of CSR issues can eventually lead to economic impact, whether by formal societal restraints
(such as laws or regulations) or less formal consumer boycotts.
Legal compliance is a necessary minimum condition for CSR. But, legal compliance does
not assure that the firm’s actions will be seen as ethical or proper. Often, actions that were
legal—even socially tolerated—may become unacceptable, even illegal, in a different time or
place. For example, consider the history of race- or gender-based discrimination. Both were
widely accepted by society (though certainly not by those affected!) in the 1940s and 1950s. But,
with the greater political activism of later years, these widespread practices were increasingly
seen as unethical, until eventually they became illegal through legislative actions and court
interpretations.
The Evolution of CSR
CSR is not a new or sudden phenomenon. Early writings in the Middle East and China at
the dawn of written history report standards, expectations, and rules for commerce. Consumer
boycotts appeared in England, for example, in the 1790s in response to slave-harvested sugar,
actions deemed unacceptable by segments of society. Even today, one can hardly pick up a
newspaper without reading about some CSR-related complaint about businesses, ranging from
the serious ecological damage of oil spills to more mundane matters.
TEACHING NOTE: It may be a useful exercise to ask students to identify current
issues from local newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, or other business periodicals as the
basis of a classroom discussion that illustrates the timeliness and immediacy of CSR.
Loading page 5...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
5
In the United States, The Alien Tort Claims Act allows foreign nationals to sue in U.S.
courts for the overseas actions of U.S. firms or their partners. This 1789 law is being used to try
and hold U.S. firms accountable for the actions of others, as when a U.S. firm partners with a
foreign firm that violates human rights. Thus, what may be legal—even encouraged—in one
country, may bring legal repercussions in another.
The Cultural and Contextual Assumptions
Democracy and economics are two major variables that influence CSR. Democracy is,
perhaps, obvious. People in North Korea, Cuba, or other repressive, non-democratic societies
have little recourse to protest the CSR-related actions of organizations, domestic or foreign. Even
in democratic societies, the demands of CSR may be constrained by economic reality. Rich
societies can afford to “tax” themselves with demands for clean air, for example, even if the
result is that automobiles cost hundreds of dollars more than they would without clear air
devices. In poor societies, however, even though people value clean air, the imposition of clean-
air rules may mean the loss of jobs, especially among marginal firms that lack the resources to
comply with CSR concerns that evolve from ethical to legal.
A Moral Argument for CSR
CSR emerges from the interaction and interdependence between for-profits and society. It
is shaped by individual and societal standards of morality, ethics, and values that define
contemporary views of human rights and social justice. Thus, to what extent does a business
have an obligation to re-pay the debt it owes society for its continued business success?
On the one hand, it can be argued that business success depends on the society that
provides the infrastructure, employees, consumers, and other elements that are central to success.
On the other hand, if a business must fully reflect societal costs, it may not be able to compete—
especially with firms in other societies that may be able to externalize their costs (such as
dumping unfiltered pollution into local waterways).
TEACHING NOTE: It may be useful to ask students to discuss the moral argument in the
form of “pros” and “cons” surrounding this issue.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
5
In the United States, The Alien Tort Claims Act allows foreign nationals to sue in U.S.
courts for the overseas actions of U.S. firms or their partners. This 1789 law is being used to try
and hold U.S. firms accountable for the actions of others, as when a U.S. firm partners with a
foreign firm that violates human rights. Thus, what may be legal—even encouraged—in one
country, may bring legal repercussions in another.
The Cultural and Contextual Assumptions
Democracy and economics are two major variables that influence CSR. Democracy is,
perhaps, obvious. People in North Korea, Cuba, or other repressive, non-democratic societies
have little recourse to protest the CSR-related actions of organizations, domestic or foreign. Even
in democratic societies, the demands of CSR may be constrained by economic reality. Rich
societies can afford to “tax” themselves with demands for clean air, for example, even if the
result is that automobiles cost hundreds of dollars more than they would without clear air
devices. In poor societies, however, even though people value clean air, the imposition of clean-
air rules may mean the loss of jobs, especially among marginal firms that lack the resources to
comply with CSR concerns that evolve from ethical to legal.
A Moral Argument for CSR
CSR emerges from the interaction and interdependence between for-profits and society. It
is shaped by individual and societal standards of morality, ethics, and values that define
contemporary views of human rights and social justice. Thus, to what extent does a business
have an obligation to re-pay the debt it owes society for its continued business success?
On the one hand, it can be argued that business success depends on the society that
provides the infrastructure, employees, consumers, and other elements that are central to success.
On the other hand, if a business must fully reflect societal costs, it may not be able to compete—
especially with firms in other societies that may be able to externalize their costs (such as
dumping unfiltered pollution into local waterways).
TEACHING NOTE: It may be useful to ask students to discuss the moral argument in the
form of “pros” and “cons” surrounding this issue.
Loading page 6...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
6
TEACHING NOTE: Two questions from the text may be worth discussing at this
juncture:
• To what extent does a business have an obligation to re-pay the debt it owes
society for its continued business success?
• What responsibilities do businesses face in return for the benefits society grants?
As an academic field, CSR represents an organized approach to answering these
questions. As an applied discipline, it represents the extent to which businesses need to deliver
on their societal obligations as defined by society.
A Moral Argument for CSR
CSR broadly represents the relationship between a company and the principles expected by the
wider society within which it operates. It assumes businesses recognize that for-profit entities do
not exist in a vacuum and that a large part of their success comes as much from actions that are
congruent with societal values as from factors internal to the company.
Because society’s contributions make businesses possible, those businesses have an
obligation back to society to operate in ways that are deemed socially responsible and beneficial.
Without the larger society, there would be no businesses. So, some argue that society has the
right to define the terms of the relationships among its players.
A Rational Argument for CSR
As argued in the text:
The loss of moral legitimacy can lead to the countervailing power of social activism,
restrictive legislation, or other constraints on the firm’s freedom to pursue its economic
and other interests. Violations of ethical and discretionary standards are not just
inappropriate; they present a rational argument for CSR. Because societal sanctions—
such as laws, fines, prohibitions, boycotts, or social activism—impact the firm’s strategic
goals, efforts to comply with societal expectations are rational, regardless of moral
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
6
TEACHING NOTE: Two questions from the text may be worth discussing at this
juncture:
• To what extent does a business have an obligation to re-pay the debt it owes
society for its continued business success?
• What responsibilities do businesses face in return for the benefits society grants?
As an academic field, CSR represents an organized approach to answering these
questions. As an applied discipline, it represents the extent to which businesses need to deliver
on their societal obligations as defined by society.
A Moral Argument for CSR
CSR broadly represents the relationship between a company and the principles expected by the
wider society within which it operates. It assumes businesses recognize that for-profit entities do
not exist in a vacuum and that a large part of their success comes as much from actions that are
congruent with societal values as from factors internal to the company.
Because society’s contributions make businesses possible, those businesses have an
obligation back to society to operate in ways that are deemed socially responsible and beneficial.
Without the larger society, there would be no businesses. So, some argue that society has the
right to define the terms of the relationships among its players.
A Rational Argument for CSR
As argued in the text:
The loss of moral legitimacy can lead to the countervailing power of social activism,
restrictive legislation, or other constraints on the firm’s freedom to pursue its economic
and other interests. Violations of ethical and discretionary standards are not just
inappropriate; they present a rational argument for CSR. Because societal sanctions—
such as laws, fines, prohibitions, boycotts, or social activism—impact the firm’s strategic
goals, efforts to comply with societal expectations are rational, regardless of moral
Loading page 7...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
7
arguments. Where compliance with moral expectations is based on highly subjective
values, the rational argument rests on sanction avoidance.
By not adopting a proactive (or at least accommodative) approach to fair treatment,
businesses can find their behavior suddenly (and expensively) curtailed through legislation,
judicial and agency interpretations, and penalties, because of a failure to interpret the evolving
social and business environment.
A Rational Argument for CSR
CSR is a rational argument for businesses seeking to maximize their performance by minimizing
restrictions on operations. In today’s globalizing world, where individuals and activist
organizations feel empowered to enact change, CSR represents a means of anticipating and
reflecting societal concerns to minimize operational and financial constraints on business.
Ultimately, the Iron Law of Social Responsibility suggests that in a free society
discretionary abuse of societal responsibilities leads, eventually, to mandated solutions. That is,
in a democratic society, power is taken away from those who abuse it.
An Economic Argument for CSR
Summing the moral and rational arguments for CSR leads to an economic argument. To
incorporate CSR into operations offers a potential point of differentiation and competitive market
advantage upon which future success can be built, besides avoiding moral, legal, and other
sanctions.
An Economic Argument for CSR
CSR is an argument of economic self-interest for business. CSR adds value because it allows
companies to reflect the needs and concerns of their various stakeholder groups. By doing so, a
company is more likely to retain its societal legitimacy and maximize its financial viability over
the medium- to long term. Simply put, CSR is a way of matching corporate operations with
societal values and expectations that are constantly evolving.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
7
arguments. Where compliance with moral expectations is based on highly subjective
values, the rational argument rests on sanction avoidance.
By not adopting a proactive (or at least accommodative) approach to fair treatment,
businesses can find their behavior suddenly (and expensively) curtailed through legislation,
judicial and agency interpretations, and penalties, because of a failure to interpret the evolving
social and business environment.
A Rational Argument for CSR
CSR is a rational argument for businesses seeking to maximize their performance by minimizing
restrictions on operations. In today’s globalizing world, where individuals and activist
organizations feel empowered to enact change, CSR represents a means of anticipating and
reflecting societal concerns to minimize operational and financial constraints on business.
Ultimately, the Iron Law of Social Responsibility suggests that in a free society
discretionary abuse of societal responsibilities leads, eventually, to mandated solutions. That is,
in a democratic society, power is taken away from those who abuse it.
An Economic Argument for CSR
Summing the moral and rational arguments for CSR leads to an economic argument. To
incorporate CSR into operations offers a potential point of differentiation and competitive market
advantage upon which future success can be built, besides avoiding moral, legal, and other
sanctions.
An Economic Argument for CSR
CSR is an argument of economic self-interest for business. CSR adds value because it allows
companies to reflect the needs and concerns of their various stakeholder groups. By doing so, a
company is more likely to retain its societal legitimacy and maximize its financial viability over
the medium- to long term. Simply put, CSR is a way of matching corporate operations with
societal values and expectations that are constantly evolving.
Loading page 8...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
8
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility expounds the economic argument in favor of
CSR. We believe it is the clearest of the four (ethical, moral, rational, and economic) arguments
supporting CSR. In summary, the economic argument contains all the factors explaining why
CSR is of strategic importance for businesses today.
Why is CSR Important?
Increasingly, society is becoming better informed and more socially aware of
what firms are doing. Businesses, especially those that survive and prosper directly from
consumers, risk their success and brand name when acting in ways that are not seen as socially
appropriate. What would be the impact on Coca-Cola, for example, if the employees in its
Minute Maid orange juice division were seen as exploited by poor wages or working conditions?
Why is CSR Increasingly Relevant Today?
A variety of forces are heightening interest in CSR. Among these are increased affluence,
ecological sustainability, globalization, the free flow of information (social media), and brands.
Affluence means choices. Citizens of wealthy countries can make choices based on
considerations that are more varied and complex than simple survival and economics. Ecological
sustainability matters, from both the reality of a shared planet and the public’s perceptions of a
firm’s commitment to the health and well-being of the communities in which it operates—
especially since more people identify themselves as supporting ecological concerns than either
major political party in the United States. And, of course, firms that do obvious ecological
damage are increasingly penalized by high profile protests from activist groups such as
Greenpeace, which have become particularly adept at gaining media attention. Globalization
increasingly strips down geographical and cultural barriers, so that actions in one place (even if
legal and proper) are subject to evaluation from the perspective of multiple cultures, laws, and
societal expectations. Globalization combined with the ever increasingly free flow of
information, further underscores the “shrinking planet” metaphor. Actions and practices in one
locale can jump across the globe. Perhaps nowhere is the impact of CSR more obvious than
when it comes to brands. The equity built up from customer use, advertising, and other image-
shaping actions represents an often-huge investment and an important “asset” to the firm.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
8
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility expounds the economic argument in favor of
CSR. We believe it is the clearest of the four (ethical, moral, rational, and economic) arguments
supporting CSR. In summary, the economic argument contains all the factors explaining why
CSR is of strategic importance for businesses today.
Why is CSR Important?
Increasingly, society is becoming better informed and more socially aware of
what firms are doing. Businesses, especially those that survive and prosper directly from
consumers, risk their success and brand name when acting in ways that are not seen as socially
appropriate. What would be the impact on Coca-Cola, for example, if the employees in its
Minute Maid orange juice division were seen as exploited by poor wages or working conditions?
Why is CSR Increasingly Relevant Today?
A variety of forces are heightening interest in CSR. Among these are increased affluence,
ecological sustainability, globalization, the free flow of information (social media), and brands.
Affluence means choices. Citizens of wealthy countries can make choices based on
considerations that are more varied and complex than simple survival and economics. Ecological
sustainability matters, from both the reality of a shared planet and the public’s perceptions of a
firm’s commitment to the health and well-being of the communities in which it operates—
especially since more people identify themselves as supporting ecological concerns than either
major political party in the United States. And, of course, firms that do obvious ecological
damage are increasingly penalized by high profile protests from activist groups such as
Greenpeace, which have become particularly adept at gaining media attention. Globalization
increasingly strips down geographical and cultural barriers, so that actions in one place (even if
legal and proper) are subject to evaluation from the perspective of multiple cultures, laws, and
societal expectations. Globalization combined with the ever increasingly free flow of
information, further underscores the “shrinking planet” metaphor. Actions and practices in one
locale can jump across the globe. Perhaps nowhere is the impact of CSR more obvious than
when it comes to brands. The equity built up from customer use, advertising, and other image-
shaping actions represents an often-huge investment and an important “asset” to the firm.
Loading page 9...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
9
Maltreatment of workers, defective products, and related problems can tarnish, even destroy, a
brand and the investments made to create it.
Perhaps most interesting, these trends are virtually certain to continue and will make
attention to CSR increasingly important for both consumers and corporations.
Beyond Trends
Admittedly, arguments against CSR exist. These will be explored in Chapter 3, “How
Much Does CSR Matter?” But, first, we examine “Corporate Strategy: A Stakeholder
Perspective” in Chapter 2.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
9
Maltreatment of workers, defective products, and related problems can tarnish, even destroy, a
brand and the investments made to create it.
Perhaps most interesting, these trends are virtually certain to continue and will make
attention to CSR increasingly important for both consumers and corporations.
Beyond Trends
Admittedly, arguments against CSR exist. These will be explored in Chapter 3, “How
Much Does CSR Matter?” But, first, we examine “Corporate Strategy: A Stakeholder
Perspective” in Chapter 2.
Loading page 10...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
1
CHAPTER 2
STRATEGY + CSR:
A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE
FACULTY NOTES AND DISCUSSION
All organizations, like organisms, survive or perish depending on how they adapt to their
environment. As discussed in Chapter 1, a firm’s stakeholders are key elements of its
environment. Strategy seeks a sustainable competitive advantage. Its success rests on matching
the organization’s internal competencies with the demands of its external competitive
environment. Central to both sides of the equation (the firm’s internal capabilities and its
external environment) are the firm’s internal and external stakeholders.
We argue that, while these perspectives contain important insights into a firm’s ability to
convert resources into a competitive advantage, a stakeholder perspective is better suited for
firms trying to navigate the global business environment of the 21st century. A stakeholder
perspective enables firms to identify the multiple constituents in its environment that are affected
by the firm’s operations, while also allowing them to prioritize among those stakeholders’ often
competing demands. By integrating a stakeholder/CSR perspective within strategic planning and
day-to-day operations, firms are better prepared to respond effectively to their stakeholders’
needs.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
1
CHAPTER 2
STRATEGY + CSR:
A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE
FACULTY NOTES AND DISCUSSION
All organizations, like organisms, survive or perish depending on how they adapt to their
environment. As discussed in Chapter 1, a firm’s stakeholders are key elements of its
environment. Strategy seeks a sustainable competitive advantage. Its success rests on matching
the organization’s internal competencies with the demands of its external competitive
environment. Central to both sides of the equation (the firm’s internal capabilities and its
external environment) are the firm’s internal and external stakeholders.
We argue that, while these perspectives contain important insights into a firm’s ability to
convert resources into a competitive advantage, a stakeholder perspective is better suited for
firms trying to navigate the global business environment of the 21st century. A stakeholder
perspective enables firms to identify the multiple constituents in its environment that are affected
by the firm’s operations, while also allowing them to prioritize among those stakeholders’ often
competing demands. By integrating a stakeholder/CSR perspective within strategic planning and
day-to-day operations, firms are better prepared to respond effectively to their stakeholders’
needs.
Loading page 11...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
2
WHAT IS STRATEGY?
Insight comes from understanding the need in society that the business seeks to meet.
That need, toward which the organization strives, forms the basis of its aspirations or vision.
Ideally, an organization’s vision is an ennobling, articulated statement of what it seeks to do and
become. A vision that ignores the larger role that a firm plays in society is likely to be neither
noble nor sustainable. Vision statements must appeal to multiple stakeholders, including
members of the organization (employees), its direct beneficiaries (owners), its economic partners
(customers and suppliers), and the larger community in which the organization operates (society,
broadly defined).
From these aspirations, the firm’s mission identifies what the organization is going to do
in order to attain its vision. A food bank, for example, may have a vision of “ending hunger in
the community” and a mission to “feed the poor.” The vision identifies what the organization is
striving toward, while the mission tells us what the organization is going to do to get there. Both
these statements are constrained by what the firm’s stakeholders and society deem to be
acceptable.
A firm’s strategy explains how the organization intends to achieve its vision and mission.
It defines the organization’s response to its competitive environment. At the corporate level, a
firm’s strategy determines which businesses the firm will operate and whether it will enter into
partnerships with other firms (via joint ventures, mergers, or acquisitions). Thus, a food bank
may have a corporate level strategy of partnering with a government agency to enhance its
access and distribution capabilities. At the level of the business unit, a firm’s strategy determines
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
2
WHAT IS STRATEGY?
Insight comes from understanding the need in society that the business seeks to meet.
That need, toward which the organization strives, forms the basis of its aspirations or vision.
Ideally, an organization’s vision is an ennobling, articulated statement of what it seeks to do and
become. A vision that ignores the larger role that a firm plays in society is likely to be neither
noble nor sustainable. Vision statements must appeal to multiple stakeholders, including
members of the organization (employees), its direct beneficiaries (owners), its economic partners
(customers and suppliers), and the larger community in which the organization operates (society,
broadly defined).
From these aspirations, the firm’s mission identifies what the organization is going to do
in order to attain its vision. A food bank, for example, may have a vision of “ending hunger in
the community” and a mission to “feed the poor.” The vision identifies what the organization is
striving toward, while the mission tells us what the organization is going to do to get there. Both
these statements are constrained by what the firm’s stakeholders and society deem to be
acceptable.
A firm’s strategy explains how the organization intends to achieve its vision and mission.
It defines the organization’s response to its competitive environment. At the corporate level, a
firm’s strategy determines which businesses the firm will operate and whether it will enter into
partnerships with other firms (via joint ventures, mergers, or acquisitions). Thus, a food bank
may have a corporate level strategy of partnering with a government agency to enhance its
access and distribution capabilities. At the level of the business unit, a firm’s strategy determines
Loading page 12...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
3
how the unit will differentiate its products from the products of its competitors. Thus, the food
bank may have a strategy of using a mobile soup kitchen that can transport the food to where the
poor live.
A firm’s tactics are the day-to-day management decisions that implement the strategy.
Tactics are the actions people in the organization take every day. As a result, tactics are flexible
and can be altered more easily to reflect changes in operational context. Ultimately, however, the
purpose of these day-to-day tactical actions is to realize the firm’s strategy.
A Firm’s Vision, Mission, Strategy, and Tactics
• The vision answers why the organization exists. It identifies the needs the firm
aspires to solve for others.
• The mission states what the organization is going to do to achieve its vision. It
addresses the types of activities the firm seeks to perform.
• The strategy determines how the organization is going to undertake its mission. It
sets forth the ways it will negotiate its competitive environment in order to attain a
sustainable advantage.
• The tactics are the day-to-day management decisions made to implement the firm’s
strategy.
Aligning its vision, mission, strategy, and tactics gives direction to the firm and focus to
its employees. As important as giving direction of the firm, this chain also informs the
organization of what it will not do. The overall goal is to ensure that the strategy and tactics
achieve the vision and mission of the firm.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
3
how the unit will differentiate its products from the products of its competitors. Thus, the food
bank may have a strategy of using a mobile soup kitchen that can transport the food to where the
poor live.
A firm’s tactics are the day-to-day management decisions that implement the strategy.
Tactics are the actions people in the organization take every day. As a result, tactics are flexible
and can be altered more easily to reflect changes in operational context. Ultimately, however, the
purpose of these day-to-day tactical actions is to realize the firm’s strategy.
A Firm’s Vision, Mission, Strategy, and Tactics
• The vision answers why the organization exists. It identifies the needs the firm
aspires to solve for others.
• The mission states what the organization is going to do to achieve its vision. It
addresses the types of activities the firm seeks to perform.
• The strategy determines how the organization is going to undertake its mission. It
sets forth the ways it will negotiate its competitive environment in order to attain a
sustainable advantage.
• The tactics are the day-to-day management decisions made to implement the firm’s
strategy.
Aligning its vision, mission, strategy, and tactics gives direction to the firm and focus to
its employees. As important as giving direction of the firm, this chain also informs the
organization of what it will not do. The overall goal is to ensure that the strategy and tactics
achieve the vision and mission of the firm.
Loading page 13...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
4
COMPETING STRATEGY PERSPECTIVES
Often, the strategy planning process begins with a SWOT analysis. A SWOT analysis is a
tool that allows a firm to identify its internal Strengths and Weaknesses, while also analyzing the
external Opportunities and Threats that are present in its environment. The goal of a firm’s
strategy, therefore, is to recognize its strengths and align them with the opportunities that are
present in the environment, ensuring that the strategy and tactics remain consistent with its vision
and mission. Weaknesses are addressed to the extent that they impair the strategy’s effectiveness,
while threats in the environment are monitored and evaluated for their disruptive potential.
Building on the foundation of the SWOT analysis, strategy is traditionally viewed from
two competing perspectives.1 Although it is not clear that these perspectives enjoy empirical
support, they are well established and commonly taught. The two competing perspectives draw
on the two sides of the SWOT analysis—the internal strengths and weaknesses, and the external
opportunities and threats. The resources perspective is an internal view of the firm that identifies
its unique resources (e.g., highly skilled employees or monopoly access to valuable raw
materials) and capabilities (e.g., effective research and development or efficient production
processes) as the main determinant of a sustainable competitive advantage. Those firms that have
the most valuable resources or most innovative capabilities (collectively called competencies),
will most likely produce the most valued products and services in the most efficient manner. As
a result, these firms are able to build and sustain a competitive advantage over the competition.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
4
COMPETING STRATEGY PERSPECTIVES
Often, the strategy planning process begins with a SWOT analysis. A SWOT analysis is a
tool that allows a firm to identify its internal Strengths and Weaknesses, while also analyzing the
external Opportunities and Threats that are present in its environment. The goal of a firm’s
strategy, therefore, is to recognize its strengths and align them with the opportunities that are
present in the environment, ensuring that the strategy and tactics remain consistent with its vision
and mission. Weaknesses are addressed to the extent that they impair the strategy’s effectiveness,
while threats in the environment are monitored and evaluated for their disruptive potential.
Building on the foundation of the SWOT analysis, strategy is traditionally viewed from
two competing perspectives.1 Although it is not clear that these perspectives enjoy empirical
support, they are well established and commonly taught. The two competing perspectives draw
on the two sides of the SWOT analysis—the internal strengths and weaknesses, and the external
opportunities and threats. The resources perspective is an internal view of the firm that identifies
its unique resources (e.g., highly skilled employees or monopoly access to valuable raw
materials) and capabilities (e.g., effective research and development or efficient production
processes) as the main determinant of a sustainable competitive advantage. Those firms that have
the most valuable resources or most innovative capabilities (collectively called competencies),
will most likely produce the most valued products and services in the most efficient manner. As
a result, these firms are able to build and sustain a competitive advantage over the competition.
Loading page 14...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
5
An alternative view is the industry perspective, which focuses, instead, on the company’s
immediate operational context. This external perspective of the firm identifies the structure of the
environment in which it operates (in particular, its industry) as the main determinant of its
competitive advantage. Success in the market, this perspective argues, is less to do with
individual differences among firms and more to do with the competitive structure of the firm’s
industry. To the extent that an industry is structured favorably (as in the case of a monopoly or
through favorable government regulation), the companies operating in that industry will enjoy
greater profit potential than those firms that operate in a more constrained industry environment.
The tensions between these two perspectives form a central theoretical component of
strategy thinking and, as such, merit further elaboration.
THE RESOURCES PERSPECTIVE
The resources perspective is detailed in a 1990 Harvard Business Review article2 by C.K.
Prahalad and Gary Hamel, who then expanded on their ideas in a 1994 book.3 The core idea that
Prahalad and Hamel convey is the distinction between a firm that is built around a portfolio of
business units and a firm that is built around a portfolio of core competencies. While separate
business units encourage replication and inefficiencies, core competencies develop efficient
systems that can be applied in multiple settings across business units and throughout the firm.
Wal-Mart’s core competency of efficient distribution, for example, can be applied at all stages of
its retail operations. Equally, Google’s core competency of writing sophisticated algorithms that
allow the firm to pursue its mission to “organize the world’s information,”4 can be applied to
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
5
An alternative view is the industry perspective, which focuses, instead, on the company’s
immediate operational context. This external perspective of the firm identifies the structure of the
environment in which it operates (in particular, its industry) as the main determinant of its
competitive advantage. Success in the market, this perspective argues, is less to do with
individual differences among firms and more to do with the competitive structure of the firm’s
industry. To the extent that an industry is structured favorably (as in the case of a monopoly or
through favorable government regulation), the companies operating in that industry will enjoy
greater profit potential than those firms that operate in a more constrained industry environment.
The tensions between these two perspectives form a central theoretical component of
strategy thinking and, as such, merit further elaboration.
THE RESOURCES PERSPECTIVE
The resources perspective is detailed in a 1990 Harvard Business Review article2 by C.K.
Prahalad and Gary Hamel, who then expanded on their ideas in a 1994 book.3 The core idea that
Prahalad and Hamel convey is the distinction between a firm that is built around a portfolio of
business units and a firm that is built around a portfolio of core competencies. While separate
business units encourage replication and inefficiencies, core competencies develop efficient
systems that can be applied in multiple settings across business units and throughout the firm.
Wal-Mart’s core competency of efficient distribution, for example, can be applied at all stages of
its retail operations. Equally, Google’s core competency of writing sophisticated algorithms that
allow the firm to pursue its mission to “organize the world’s information,”4 can be applied to
Loading page 15...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
6
searching for products, images, academic papers, and many other topics. Moreover, core
competencies can be built, given the correct set of circumstances. It is a firm’s set of core
competencies that will differentiate it from its competition and allow it to sustain a competitive
advantage:
“In the short run, a company’s competitiveness derives from the price/performance
attributes of current products. … In the long run, competitiveness derives from an ability
to build, at lower cost and more speedily than competitors, the core competencies that
spawn unanticipated products. The real sources of advantage are to be found in
management’s ability to consolidate corporate-wide technologies and production skills
into competencies that empower individual businesses to adapt quickly to changing
opportunities.”5
Limitations of the Resources Perspective
There are two main limitations of the resources perspective. First, by focusing primarily
on the internal characteristics of the firm, the resources perspective ignores much of the context
in which the firm operates. Second, the resources perspective provides a description of the firm
that is very deliberate and rational. The combination of these two limitations suggests that, while
valuable, the resources perspective alone provides an incomplete understanding of strategy in
today’s global business environment.
THE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
6
searching for products, images, academic papers, and many other topics. Moreover, core
competencies can be built, given the correct set of circumstances. It is a firm’s set of core
competencies that will differentiate it from its competition and allow it to sustain a competitive
advantage:
“In the short run, a company’s competitiveness derives from the price/performance
attributes of current products. … In the long run, competitiveness derives from an ability
to build, at lower cost and more speedily than competitors, the core competencies that
spawn unanticipated products. The real sources of advantage are to be found in
management’s ability to consolidate corporate-wide technologies and production skills
into competencies that empower individual businesses to adapt quickly to changing
opportunities.”5
Limitations of the Resources Perspective
There are two main limitations of the resources perspective. First, by focusing primarily
on the internal characteristics of the firm, the resources perspective ignores much of the context
in which the firm operates. Second, the resources perspective provides a description of the firm
that is very deliberate and rational. The combination of these two limitations suggests that, while
valuable, the resources perspective alone provides an incomplete understanding of strategy in
today’s global business environment.
THE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
Loading page 16...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
7
The industry perspective is grounded theoretically in industrial economics. Its main
proponent in the management literature is Michael Porter, whose five forces model is a staple
component of corporate strategy. Porter first outlined his ideas in a 1979 Harvard Business
Review article.6 Porter later published two books that expanded on his initial ideas by introducing
a distinction between business and corporate level strategies7 and the value chain.8 More
recently, in a 2008 Harvard Business Review article, Porter updated his five forces model to
account for changes since the initial publication.9
The industry perspective focuses on the firm’s operating environment (in particular, its
industry) as the most important determinant of competitive advantage. There are five competitive
forces in Porter’s model (Figure 2.1): suppliers, buyers, new entrants, substitutes, and industry
rivalry. These five forces compete for a fixed pool of resources and it is this competition that
determines the ability of any individual firm to profit in the industry. As such, Porter envisions
competition as a zero-sum game between these five forces and the focal firm. The strength of
each force is measured relative to the strength of the focal firm. In other words, to the extent that
any of the five forces grows in strength, this occurs to the detriment of the focal firm, which
becomes relatively weaker.
Limitations of the Industry Perspective
There are three main limitations inherent within the industry perspective. First, is the
presentation of business as a combative pursuit—a zero-sum game of survival. Second, the
industry perspective presents a narrow view of the firm’s operating environment. Only five
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
7
The industry perspective is grounded theoretically in industrial economics. Its main
proponent in the management literature is Michael Porter, whose five forces model is a staple
component of corporate strategy. Porter first outlined his ideas in a 1979 Harvard Business
Review article.6 Porter later published two books that expanded on his initial ideas by introducing
a distinction between business and corporate level strategies7 and the value chain.8 More
recently, in a 2008 Harvard Business Review article, Porter updated his five forces model to
account for changes since the initial publication.9
The industry perspective focuses on the firm’s operating environment (in particular, its
industry) as the most important determinant of competitive advantage. There are five competitive
forces in Porter’s model (Figure 2.1): suppliers, buyers, new entrants, substitutes, and industry
rivalry. These five forces compete for a fixed pool of resources and it is this competition that
determines the ability of any individual firm to profit in the industry. As such, Porter envisions
competition as a zero-sum game between these five forces and the focal firm. The strength of
each force is measured relative to the strength of the focal firm. In other words, to the extent that
any of the five forces grows in strength, this occurs to the detriment of the focal firm, which
becomes relatively weaker.
Limitations of the Industry Perspective
There are three main limitations inherent within the industry perspective. First, is the
presentation of business as a combative pursuit—a zero-sum game of survival. Second, the
industry perspective presents a narrow view of the firm’s operating environment. Only five
Loading page 17...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
8
forces are included, which cover only three stakeholders—the firm’s buyers, suppliers, and
competitors. This picture omits numerous stakeholders that have the potential to alter
dramatically a company’s competitive environment—such as the local community, the
government, and other stakeholders.
Third, the industry perspective fails to give sufficient recognition to differences in
characteristics among companies, which are likely to be predictive of their ability to thrive in a
given environment. A holistic model of the firm in its environment that also recognizes the value
of the firm’s resources and capabilities would provide a more comprehensive tool that firms can
use to analyze their operating context (both internal and external conditions) and plan their
strategy accordingly.
While the resources and industry perspectives, therefore, are valuable tools that provide
insight into the actions of businesses, the situations in which they operate, and the potential to
build a sustained competitive advantage, these two perspectives have their limits. Both are
narrow in their application and exclude factors that intuitively contribute to a firm’s strategy and,
therefore, its success. As such, they limit attention to the components of the larger context facing
a company. More relevant to the argument presented in Strategic CSR is a broader perspective
that incorporates the total mix of influences, expectations, and responsibilities that firms face in
their day-to-day operations and that necessarily shape their strategies in response.
In addition to the two traditional strategy perspectives, therefore, we propose a
stakeholder perspective as a more complete tool to analyze a firm’s operating context and create
the most appropriate strategic plan of action.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
8
forces are included, which cover only three stakeholders—the firm’s buyers, suppliers, and
competitors. This picture omits numerous stakeholders that have the potential to alter
dramatically a company’s competitive environment—such as the local community, the
government, and other stakeholders.
Third, the industry perspective fails to give sufficient recognition to differences in
characteristics among companies, which are likely to be predictive of their ability to thrive in a
given environment. A holistic model of the firm in its environment that also recognizes the value
of the firm’s resources and capabilities would provide a more comprehensive tool that firms can
use to analyze their operating context (both internal and external conditions) and plan their
strategy accordingly.
While the resources and industry perspectives, therefore, are valuable tools that provide
insight into the actions of businesses, the situations in which they operate, and the potential to
build a sustained competitive advantage, these two perspectives have their limits. Both are
narrow in their application and exclude factors that intuitively contribute to a firm’s strategy and,
therefore, its success. As such, they limit attention to the components of the larger context facing
a company. More relevant to the argument presented in Strategic CSR is a broader perspective
that incorporates the total mix of influences, expectations, and responsibilities that firms face in
their day-to-day operations and that necessarily shape their strategies in response.
In addition to the two traditional strategy perspectives, therefore, we propose a
stakeholder perspective as a more complete tool to analyze a firm’s operating context and create
the most appropriate strategic plan of action.
Loading page 18...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
9
A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE
TEACHING NOTE: Here, an open discussion can engage students in identifying and
defining different stakeholders that affect an organization. Using the school or university
as a relevant example can make a compelling argument.
While definitions of what constitutes a stakeholder may differ in emphasis, with different
groups included,10 they largely agree in terms of sentiment. Here are three well-known
examples: Definitions of a Stakeholder
Stakeholders in an organization are the individuals and groups who are depending on
the firm in order to achieve their personal goals and on whom the firm is depending for
its existence.
Eric Rhenman
“A stakeholder in an organization is (by definition) any group or individual who can
affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.”
R. Edward Freeman11
“The stakeholders in a firm are individuals and constituencies that contribute, either
voluntarily or involuntarily, to its wealth-creating capacity and activities, and who are
therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers.”
Post, Preston, and Sachs12
A firm’s stakeholders can be divided into three separate groups: organizational
stakeholders (internal to the firm) and economic and societal stakeholders (external to the firm).
The firm’s economic stakeholders represent the interface between the organizational and
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
9
A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE
TEACHING NOTE: Here, an open discussion can engage students in identifying and
defining different stakeholders that affect an organization. Using the school or university
as a relevant example can make a compelling argument.
While definitions of what constitutes a stakeholder may differ in emphasis, with different
groups included,10 they largely agree in terms of sentiment. Here are three well-known
examples: Definitions of a Stakeholder
Stakeholders in an organization are the individuals and groups who are depending on
the firm in order to achieve their personal goals and on whom the firm is depending for
its existence.
Eric Rhenman
“A stakeholder in an organization is (by definition) any group or individual who can
affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.”
R. Edward Freeman11
“The stakeholders in a firm are individuals and constituencies that contribute, either
voluntarily or involuntarily, to its wealth-creating capacity and activities, and who are
therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers.”
Post, Preston, and Sachs12
A firm’s stakeholders can be divided into three separate groups: organizational
stakeholders (internal to the firm) and economic and societal stakeholders (external to the firm).
The firm’s economic stakeholders represent the interface between the organizational and
Loading page 19...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
10
societal stakeholders.
The Environment as a Stakeholder
There is an interesting debate whether the natural environment, as a non-independent
actor, should be included as an identifiable stakeholder of the firm.
PRIORITIZING STAKEHOLDERS
An effective stakeholder model, however, must do more than merely identify the
company’s stakeholders. Equally important, if the model is to be of use to firms in terms of
implementation, is the ability to prioritize among these stakeholders. This is particularly
important when the interests of these stakeholders conflict, as they often do.
The businesses most likely to succeed in today’s rapidly evolving global environment
will be those best able to adapt to their dynamic environment by balancing the conflicting
interests of multiple stakeholders. Integrating a stakeholder perspective into a strategic
framework is designed to allow companies to respond to stakeholder demands in ways that
maximize both economic and social value. Just because an individual or organization merits
inclusion in a firm’s list of relevant stakeholders, however, does not compel the firm (either
legally or logically) to comply with every demand that stakeholder makes.
The concentric circles of organizational, economic, and societal stakeholders presented in
Figure 2.2 provide a rough guide to prioritization. By identifying its key stakeholders within each
category, executives can prioritize the needs and interests of certain groups over others. In
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
10
societal stakeholders.
The Environment as a Stakeholder
There is an interesting debate whether the natural environment, as a non-independent
actor, should be included as an identifiable stakeholder of the firm.
PRIORITIZING STAKEHOLDERS
An effective stakeholder model, however, must do more than merely identify the
company’s stakeholders. Equally important, if the model is to be of use to firms in terms of
implementation, is the ability to prioritize among these stakeholders. This is particularly
important when the interests of these stakeholders conflict, as they often do.
The businesses most likely to succeed in today’s rapidly evolving global environment
will be those best able to adapt to their dynamic environment by balancing the conflicting
interests of multiple stakeholders. Integrating a stakeholder perspective into a strategic
framework is designed to allow companies to respond to stakeholder demands in ways that
maximize both economic and social value. Just because an individual or organization merits
inclusion in a firm’s list of relevant stakeholders, however, does not compel the firm (either
legally or logically) to comply with every demand that stakeholder makes.
The concentric circles of organizational, economic, and societal stakeholders presented in
Figure 2.2 provide a rough guide to prioritization. By identifying its key stakeholders within each
category, executives can prioritize the needs and interests of certain groups over others. In
Loading page 20...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
11
addition, we argue that among categories, stakeholders decrease in importance to the firm the
further they are removed from core operations.
In seeking to prioritize its stakeholders, however, a firm needs to keep two key points in
mind: First, no organization can afford to ignore consistently the interests of an important
stakeholder and second, it is vital to remember that the relative importance of stakeholders will
inevitably differ from firm-to-firm, from issue-to-issue, and from time-to-time.
Simon Zadek, founder and CEO of AccountAbility (http://www.accountability21.net/)
has developed a powerful tool that firms can use to evaluate which stakeholders and issues pose
the greatest potential opportunity and danger.13 First, Zadek identified the five stages of learning
that organizations go through “when it comes to developing a sense of corporate
responsibility”14—defensive (to deny responsibility), compliance (to do the minimum required),
managerial (to begin integrating CSR into management practices), strategic (to embed CSR
within the strategy planning process), and civil (to promote CSR practices industry-wide). Then,
Zadek combined these five stages of learning with four stages of intensity “to measure the
maturity of societal issues and the public’s expectations around the issues”15—latent (awareness
among activists only), emerging (awareness seeps into the political and media communities),
consolidating (much broader awareness is established), and institutionalized (tangible reaction
from powerful stakeholders).
THE INTEGRATION OF STRATEGY AND CSR
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
11
addition, we argue that among categories, stakeholders decrease in importance to the firm the
further they are removed from core operations.
In seeking to prioritize its stakeholders, however, a firm needs to keep two key points in
mind: First, no organization can afford to ignore consistently the interests of an important
stakeholder and second, it is vital to remember that the relative importance of stakeholders will
inevitably differ from firm-to-firm, from issue-to-issue, and from time-to-time.
Simon Zadek, founder and CEO of AccountAbility (http://www.accountability21.net/)
has developed a powerful tool that firms can use to evaluate which stakeholders and issues pose
the greatest potential opportunity and danger.13 First, Zadek identified the five stages of learning
that organizations go through “when it comes to developing a sense of corporate
responsibility”14—defensive (to deny responsibility), compliance (to do the minimum required),
managerial (to begin integrating CSR into management practices), strategic (to embed CSR
within the strategy planning process), and civil (to promote CSR practices industry-wide). Then,
Zadek combined these five stages of learning with four stages of intensity “to measure the
maturity of societal issues and the public’s expectations around the issues”15—latent (awareness
among activists only), emerging (awareness seeps into the political and media communities),
consolidating (much broader awareness is established), and institutionalized (tangible reaction
from powerful stakeholders).
THE INTEGRATION OF STRATEGY AND CSR
Loading page 21...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
12
That key proponents of both the resources and industry perspectives implicitly recognize
the limitations of their earlier work can be deduced from their more recent publications. In two
important respects, both Prahalad and Porter have evolved their positions: First, to integrate both
the internal (resources) and external (industry) perspectives, into one comprehensive vision; and,
second, to incorporate components of CSR and, implicitly, a broader stakeholder perspective.
Combining the Resources and Industry Perspectives
Both Prahalad and Porter, therefore, talk expansively in their recent work and, in the
process, come much closer to combining the resources and industry perspectives. Prahalad, in
discussing the potential opportunity for firms at the BOP, recognizes that a change in
environmental context alters the potential of a fixed set of resources and capabilities. In addition,
Porter and Kramer incorporate both “inside-out linkages” (a firm level perspective) and “outside-
in linkages” (an environmental level perspective) within one view of the firm and its strategic
environment that emphasizes “the interdependence between a company and society.”16
Integrating CSR
Concerning the integration of CSR into their ideas, there is a strong theme running
through all of Prahalad and Porter’s recent work. In addition to identifying new markets for
multi-national corporations, Prahalad is clearly also concerned with the social value that the
efficient delivery of products and services can provide to the developing world. In addition,
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
12
That key proponents of both the resources and industry perspectives implicitly recognize
the limitations of their earlier work can be deduced from their more recent publications. In two
important respects, both Prahalad and Porter have evolved their positions: First, to integrate both
the internal (resources) and external (industry) perspectives, into one comprehensive vision; and,
second, to incorporate components of CSR and, implicitly, a broader stakeholder perspective.
Combining the Resources and Industry Perspectives
Both Prahalad and Porter, therefore, talk expansively in their recent work and, in the
process, come much closer to combining the resources and industry perspectives. Prahalad, in
discussing the potential opportunity for firms at the BOP, recognizes that a change in
environmental context alters the potential of a fixed set of resources and capabilities. In addition,
Porter and Kramer incorporate both “inside-out linkages” (a firm level perspective) and “outside-
in linkages” (an environmental level perspective) within one view of the firm and its strategic
environment that emphasizes “the interdependence between a company and society.”16
Integrating CSR
Concerning the integration of CSR into their ideas, there is a strong theme running
through all of Prahalad and Porter’s recent work. In addition to identifying new markets for
multi-national corporations, Prahalad is clearly also concerned with the social value that the
efficient delivery of products and services can provide to the developing world. In addition,
Loading page 22...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
13
Porter is concerned about the potential social and economic value to the strategic decision
making process in firms.
On the one hand, it is clear that CSR can be thought of as a core competence of the firm.
On the other hand, however, CSR is also clearly a means to evaluate a firm’s external
environment in terms of its primary stakeholder groups—identifying the structural components
of that environment that present the firms with a favorable opportunity to succeed.
STRATEGIC CSR
There are four components that are essential to defining strategic CSR: First, that firms
incorporate a CSR perspective within their strategic planning process; second, that any actions
they take are directly related to core operations; third, that they incorporate a stakeholder
perspective; and, fourth, that they shift from a short term perspective to managing the firm’s
resources and relations with key stakeholders over the medium- to long term.
Strategic CSR, therefore, is supported by four key pillars—a CSR perspective, the core
operations of the firm, a stakeholder perspective, and medium- to long term planning. It is the
combination of these four pillars that is essential to the integration of CSR within the strategic
planning and day-to-day operations of the organization.
A CSR Perspective
Essential to any definition of strategic CSR is that firms incorporate a CSR perspective
within their strategic planning process.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
13
Porter is concerned about the potential social and economic value to the strategic decision
making process in firms.
On the one hand, it is clear that CSR can be thought of as a core competence of the firm.
On the other hand, however, CSR is also clearly a means to evaluate a firm’s external
environment in terms of its primary stakeholder groups—identifying the structural components
of that environment that present the firms with a favorable opportunity to succeed.
STRATEGIC CSR
There are four components that are essential to defining strategic CSR: First, that firms
incorporate a CSR perspective within their strategic planning process; second, that any actions
they take are directly related to core operations; third, that they incorporate a stakeholder
perspective; and, fourth, that they shift from a short term perspective to managing the firm’s
resources and relations with key stakeholders over the medium- to long term.
Strategic CSR, therefore, is supported by four key pillars—a CSR perspective, the core
operations of the firm, a stakeholder perspective, and medium- to long term planning. It is the
combination of these four pillars that is essential to the integration of CSR within the strategic
planning and day-to-day operations of the organization.
A CSR Perspective
Essential to any definition of strategic CSR is that firms incorporate a CSR perspective
within their strategic planning process.
Loading page 23...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
14
In outlining their ideas on how firms can incorporate a social dimension to their strategic
decision making, Porter and Kramer provide a three-tiered framework that forms a guide to how
organizations can prioritize among their stakeholders and the relevant social issues with which
they are expected to deal.17 The interaction between firms and issues of concern to the societies
in which they operate are divided into three levels of interaction:
• “Generic social issues” (not directly related to a firm’s operations)
• “Value chain social impacts” (the extent to which a firm’s operations affect society)
• “Social dimensions of competitive context” (the extent to which the environment
constrains a firm’s operations)
Core Operations
A second component of strategic CSR is that any action a firm takes is directly related to
its core operations. In short, the same action will differ in terms of whether it can be classified as
strategic CSR, depending on the core expertise of the firm and the relevance of the issue to the
firm’s vision and mission.
Along similar lines, it makes a great deal of sense for a computer company like Dell to
offer a computer recycling program.18 It makes much less sense, however, for Dell to offer a
“Plant a Tree for Me” program as a way for consumers to offset greenhouse gas emissions
produced as a result of the production of their new computer.19 Dell knows about computers and
should know how best to recycle them. Less obvious is Dell’s expertise in relation to tree
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
14
In outlining their ideas on how firms can incorporate a social dimension to their strategic
decision making, Porter and Kramer provide a three-tiered framework that forms a guide to how
organizations can prioritize among their stakeholders and the relevant social issues with which
they are expected to deal.17 The interaction between firms and issues of concern to the societies
in which they operate are divided into three levels of interaction:
• “Generic social issues” (not directly related to a firm’s operations)
• “Value chain social impacts” (the extent to which a firm’s operations affect society)
• “Social dimensions of competitive context” (the extent to which the environment
constrains a firm’s operations)
Core Operations
A second component of strategic CSR is that any action a firm takes is directly related to
its core operations. In short, the same action will differ in terms of whether it can be classified as
strategic CSR, depending on the core expertise of the firm and the relevance of the issue to the
firm’s vision and mission.
Along similar lines, it makes a great deal of sense for a computer company like Dell to
offer a computer recycling program.18 It makes much less sense, however, for Dell to offer a
“Plant a Tree for Me” program as a way for consumers to offset greenhouse gas emissions
produced as a result of the production of their new computer.19 Dell knows about computers and
should know how best to recycle them. Less obvious is Dell’s expertise in relation to tree
Loading page 24...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
15
planting—What trees to plant, where to plant them, or whether tree planting is an efficient use of
the firm’s resources or an effective means of combating climate change.
A Stakeholder Perspective
A third component of strategic CSR is that firms incorporate a stakeholder perspective. A
barrier to the implementation of a stakeholder perspective, however, is the primary emphasis
currently given by many corporations to the interests of its shareholders.
As discussed above, an issue that is rarely raised in relation to a stakeholder model is the
issue of prioritization. It is fine for an organization to be able to identify its different stakeholders
and their different interests and demands, but the difficulty comes when those interests and
expectations conflict. The most effective means of dealing with stakeholder conflict is
prioritization. If a firm has two stakeholder groups whose demands conflict (i.e., the firm is
unable to satisfy fully both stakeholders), it makes sense for it to respond more wholeheartedly to
the most important of the two, while attempting not to offend the other.
Medium- to Long Term
The final, and most important, component of strategic CSR is the importance of a shift
from a short term perspective when managing the firm’s resources and stakeholders’ relations to
a medium or long-term perspective.
Businesses must satisfy key groups among their various constituents if they hope to
remain viable in today’s business context. When the expectations of different stakeholders
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
15
planting—What trees to plant, where to plant them, or whether tree planting is an efficient use of
the firm’s resources or an effective means of combating climate change.
A Stakeholder Perspective
A third component of strategic CSR is that firms incorporate a stakeholder perspective. A
barrier to the implementation of a stakeholder perspective, however, is the primary emphasis
currently given by many corporations to the interests of its shareholders.
As discussed above, an issue that is rarely raised in relation to a stakeholder model is the
issue of prioritization. It is fine for an organization to be able to identify its different stakeholders
and their different interests and demands, but the difficulty comes when those interests and
expectations conflict. The most effective means of dealing with stakeholder conflict is
prioritization. If a firm has two stakeholder groups whose demands conflict (i.e., the firm is
unable to satisfy fully both stakeholders), it makes sense for it to respond more wholeheartedly to
the most important of the two, while attempting not to offend the other.
Medium- to Long Term
The final, and most important, component of strategic CSR is the importance of a shift
from a short term perspective when managing the firm’s resources and stakeholders’ relations to
a medium or long-term perspective.
Businesses must satisfy key groups among their various constituents if they hope to
remain viable in today’s business context. When the expectations of different stakeholders
Loading page 25...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
16
conflict, organizations need to be able to balance the competing interests. An example of such
conflict exists among different classes of investors who might have different definitions of what
they consider to be an acceptable level of performance. A focus on short term results, often
driven by those investors or other shareholders (such as the firm’s executives) who have no
interest in the long term health or viability of the organization, can be hugely damaging to the
organization and represents a relatively recent development in western capitalism.
A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE IN ACTION
Beyond the stakeholder model in this chapter, there are a number of contentious areas of
debate within the CSR community. These debates lead to confusion regarding possible best-
practice standards and difficulties for firms in implementation. As such, Chapter 3 will explore
some on the arguments against CSR (and the often unintended implications of progressive CSR
applications) that are yet to be resolved.
In the final two chapters of Part I, we will outline how firms integrate CSR into day-to-
day operations. Chapter 4 puts CSR into strategic perspective and expands on the growing
importance of CSR and its effect on firm strategy. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the issues that
influence the implementation of CSR within a strategic decision-making framework of the firm.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
16
conflict, organizations need to be able to balance the competing interests. An example of such
conflict exists among different classes of investors who might have different definitions of what
they consider to be an acceptable level of performance. A focus on short term results, often
driven by those investors or other shareholders (such as the firm’s executives) who have no
interest in the long term health or viability of the organization, can be hugely damaging to the
organization and represents a relatively recent development in western capitalism.
A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE IN ACTION
Beyond the stakeholder model in this chapter, there are a number of contentious areas of
debate within the CSR community. These debates lead to confusion regarding possible best-
practice standards and difficulties for firms in implementation. As such, Chapter 3 will explore
some on the arguments against CSR (and the often unintended implications of progressive CSR
applications) that are yet to be resolved.
In the final two chapters of Part I, we will outline how firms integrate CSR into day-to-
day operations. Chapter 4 puts CSR into strategic perspective and expands on the growing
importance of CSR and its effect on firm strategy. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the issues that
influence the implementation of CSR within a strategic decision-making framework of the firm.
Loading page 26...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
17
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1 An alternative tool to analyze a firm’s strategy that emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach is the
“Strategy Diamond.” This approach is detailed in an article by Donald C. Hambrick and James W. Fredrickson: ‘Are
you sure you have a strategy?’ Academy of Management Executive, Vol.19, No.4, 2005, pp. 51-62. The strategy
diamond contains five elements that cover the range of actions taken by firms to achieve their goals: arenas (the
areas in which the firm will compete), vehicles (the ways in which the firm will achieve its goals), differentiators
(the means by which the firm will differentiate itself from the competition), staging (the speed and order of
implementation), and economic logic (the route to profitability). While the strategy diamond draws on existing
knowledge, its value lies in combining this knowledge into a comprehensive tool to analyze a firm’s strategy—“an
integrated overarching concept of how the business will achieve its objectives” (p51).
2 C.K. Prahalad & Gary Hamel, ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation,’ Harvard Business Review, May-June,
1990, pp. 79-91.
3 Gary Hamel & C.K. Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
4 “Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
http://www.google.com/corporate/
5 C.K. Prahalad & Gary Hamel, ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation,’ Harvard Business Review, May-June,
1990, p81.
6 Michael E. Porter, ‘How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy,’ Harvard Business Review, March/April, 1979, pp.
137-145.
7 Michael E. Porter, Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, 1980.
8 Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, 1985.
9 Michael E. Porter, ‘The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy,’ Harvard Business Review, January 2008,
pp. 79-93.
10 See Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, ‘US: Sued by the forest,’ The Boston Globe, July 19, 2009, in CorpWatch,
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15413 for an interesting discussion about whether the ecological
environment is an identifiable stakeholder of the firm with rights that are protected by law.
11 R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, 1984, p46.
12 James E. Post, Lee E. Preston, & Sybille Sachs, ‘Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View,’
California Management Review, Vol.45, No.1, Fall 2002, p8.
13 Simon Zadek, ‘The Path to Corporate Responsibility,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2004, pp. 125-132.
14 Simon Zadek, ‘The Path to Corporate Responsibility,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2004, p127.
15 Simon Zadek, ‘The Path to Corporate Responsibility,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2004, p128.
16 Michael E. Porter & Mark R. Kramer, ‘Strategy & Society,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2006, p84.
17 Michael E. Porter & Mark R. Kramer, ‘Strategy & Society,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2006, p85.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
17
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1 An alternative tool to analyze a firm’s strategy that emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach is the
“Strategy Diamond.” This approach is detailed in an article by Donald C. Hambrick and James W. Fredrickson: ‘Are
you sure you have a strategy?’ Academy of Management Executive, Vol.19, No.4, 2005, pp. 51-62. The strategy
diamond contains five elements that cover the range of actions taken by firms to achieve their goals: arenas (the
areas in which the firm will compete), vehicles (the ways in which the firm will achieve its goals), differentiators
(the means by which the firm will differentiate itself from the competition), staging (the speed and order of
implementation), and economic logic (the route to profitability). While the strategy diamond draws on existing
knowledge, its value lies in combining this knowledge into a comprehensive tool to analyze a firm’s strategy—“an
integrated overarching concept of how the business will achieve its objectives” (p51).
2 C.K. Prahalad & Gary Hamel, ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation,’ Harvard Business Review, May-June,
1990, pp. 79-91.
3 Gary Hamel & C.K. Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
4 “Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
http://www.google.com/corporate/
5 C.K. Prahalad & Gary Hamel, ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation,’ Harvard Business Review, May-June,
1990, p81.
6 Michael E. Porter, ‘How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy,’ Harvard Business Review, March/April, 1979, pp.
137-145.
7 Michael E. Porter, Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, 1980.
8 Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, 1985.
9 Michael E. Porter, ‘The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy,’ Harvard Business Review, January 2008,
pp. 79-93.
10 See Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, ‘US: Sued by the forest,’ The Boston Globe, July 19, 2009, in CorpWatch,
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15413 for an interesting discussion about whether the ecological
environment is an identifiable stakeholder of the firm with rights that are protected by law.
11 R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, 1984, p46.
12 James E. Post, Lee E. Preston, & Sybille Sachs, ‘Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View,’
California Management Review, Vol.45, No.1, Fall 2002, p8.
13 Simon Zadek, ‘The Path to Corporate Responsibility,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2004, pp. 125-132.
14 Simon Zadek, ‘The Path to Corporate Responsibility,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2004, p127.
15 Simon Zadek, ‘The Path to Corporate Responsibility,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2004, p128.
16 Michael E. Porter & Mark R. Kramer, ‘Strategy & Society,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2006, p84.
17 Michael E. Porter & Mark R. Kramer, ‘Strategy & Society,’ Harvard Business Review, December, 2006, p85.
Loading page 27...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
18
18 http://www.dell.com/recycling/. See also: ‘Dell Will Offer Free Recycling for its Computer Equipment,’ Wall
Street Journal, June 29, 2006, pD3.
19 http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/about_dell/values/environment/tree?c=us&l=en&s=corp. See
also: ‘Dell unveils ‘plant a tree for me,’’ Financial Times, January 10, 2007, p17.
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
18
18 http://www.dell.com/recycling/. See also: ‘Dell Will Offer Free Recycling for its Computer Equipment,’ Wall
Street Journal, June 29, 2006, pD3.
19 http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/about_dell/values/environment/tree?c=us&l=en&s=corp. See
also: ‘Dell unveils ‘plant a tree for me,’’ Financial Times, January 10, 2007, p17.
Loading page 28...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
1
CHAPTER 3
CSR: WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?
FACULTY NOTES AND DISCUSSION
Whose responsibility is CSR? The term corporate social responsibility suggests that such
behavior is the responsibility of corporations. But, where does the motivation for socially
responsible behavior come from?
Should corporations act responsibly because they are convinced of the moral argument
for doing so (irrespective of the financial implications of their actions), or should they act
responsibly because it is in their self-interest? What is the point of a firm acting socially
responsibly, if its key stakeholders do not care or do not want to pay the price premium that is
often associated with such actions? As the Malden Mills example in Chapter 1 indicates, the best
of intentions do not help a firm’s stakeholders if the firm is bankrupt. The economic argument
for CSR assumes that firms act most effectively when they are incentivized to do so. It assumes
that organizations are conservative—that they are more responsive to external stimuli and are
less willing to initiate change proactively when there is little evidence that their actions will be
rewarded in the marketplace. Importantly, it assumes that CSR maximizes both economic and
social value when the firm’s goals and society’s expectations are aligned.
Chapters 1 and 2 present compelling strategic reasons for firms to integrate a CSR
perspective throughout operations. Nevertheless, unprincipled behavior, even outright disregard
for CSR, does not always have a direct and immediate impact. Sometimes stakeholders are
willing to overlook socially irresponsible behavior because other issues are more pressing. A
firm with unacceptable employment practices that are despised by employees, for example, may
not reap the negative consequences of its actions if the jobs are vital to the wellbeing of the local
community and there are no good alternatives. Should firms interpret the lack of push back
against their actions as an invitation to uphold the status quo without consideration for the
broader societal concerns about their operations?
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
1
CHAPTER 3
CSR: WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?
FACULTY NOTES AND DISCUSSION
Whose responsibility is CSR? The term corporate social responsibility suggests that such
behavior is the responsibility of corporations. But, where does the motivation for socially
responsible behavior come from?
Should corporations act responsibly because they are convinced of the moral argument
for doing so (irrespective of the financial implications of their actions), or should they act
responsibly because it is in their self-interest? What is the point of a firm acting socially
responsibly, if its key stakeholders do not care or do not want to pay the price premium that is
often associated with such actions? As the Malden Mills example in Chapter 1 indicates, the best
of intentions do not help a firm’s stakeholders if the firm is bankrupt. The economic argument
for CSR assumes that firms act most effectively when they are incentivized to do so. It assumes
that organizations are conservative—that they are more responsive to external stimuli and are
less willing to initiate change proactively when there is little evidence that their actions will be
rewarded in the marketplace. Importantly, it assumes that CSR maximizes both economic and
social value when the firm’s goals and society’s expectations are aligned.
Chapters 1 and 2 present compelling strategic reasons for firms to integrate a CSR
perspective throughout operations. Nevertheless, unprincipled behavior, even outright disregard
for CSR, does not always have a direct and immediate impact. Sometimes stakeholders are
willing to overlook socially irresponsible behavior because other issues are more pressing. A
firm with unacceptable employment practices that are despised by employees, for example, may
not reap the negative consequences of its actions if the jobs are vital to the wellbeing of the local
community and there are no good alternatives. Should firms interpret the lack of push back
against their actions as an invitation to uphold the status quo without consideration for the
broader societal concerns about their operations?
Loading page 29...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
2
A more difficult question arises when a CSR perspective fails to align the firm’s interests
with those of its stakeholders or the greater public good—i.e., when stakeholder interests
conflict. What happens when stakeholders demand non-socially responsible behavior?
The focus of much of the CSR debate has been to urge firms to act proactively out of a
social or moral duty. The label CSR itself talks about the social responsibility of corporations,
without understanding that, often, there are no meaningful consequences for firms that do not act
responsibly and that, in contrast, they are often rewarded economically for not pursuing CSR.1
Unless their business suffers as a result of their actions, should firms be expected to change?
Discussion around the issue of CSR almost exclusively focuses on the responsibilities of
business, while ignoring the responsibilities of stakeholders (consumers, in particular) to demand
socially responsible action from firms. Anecdotal evidence suggests, for example, that
consumers want the highest quality products at the lowest possible prices. If those products
happen to coincide with an ethical message, then that is great, but consumers (on the whole) are
willing to plead ignorance if it means getting their sneakers for $10 less.
If, on the other hand, consumers began demanding specific minimum standards from
firms and took their custom elsewhere if the firms failed to comply, those firms would be forced
to change their practices and change them quickly. In the absence of such active consumerism,
how can we expect businesses to introduce CSR when doing so means they have to try and
interpret what consumers say they want—opinions that often contradict the criteria those same
consumers use to make their purchase decisions?
CSR: A Corporate Responsibility?
The focus of much of the CSR debate (and captured by the term ‘corporate social
responsibility’) is the assumption that firms have a responsibility to pursue goals other than profit
maximization. In particular, we propose the idea that the CSR community expects too much of
firms; that firms react to change better than they initiate change and that, if society decides it
wants greater social responsibility from firms, then perhaps it is a firm’s stakeholders (and their
consumers, in particular) that have an equal, if not greater, responsibility to demand this
behavior. More importantly, stakeholders need to demonstrate that they will support such
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
2
A more difficult question arises when a CSR perspective fails to align the firm’s interests
with those of its stakeholders or the greater public good—i.e., when stakeholder interests
conflict. What happens when stakeholders demand non-socially responsible behavior?
The focus of much of the CSR debate has been to urge firms to act proactively out of a
social or moral duty. The label CSR itself talks about the social responsibility of corporations,
without understanding that, often, there are no meaningful consequences for firms that do not act
responsibly and that, in contrast, they are often rewarded economically for not pursuing CSR.1
Unless their business suffers as a result of their actions, should firms be expected to change?
Discussion around the issue of CSR almost exclusively focuses on the responsibilities of
business, while ignoring the responsibilities of stakeholders (consumers, in particular) to demand
socially responsible action from firms. Anecdotal evidence suggests, for example, that
consumers want the highest quality products at the lowest possible prices. If those products
happen to coincide with an ethical message, then that is great, but consumers (on the whole) are
willing to plead ignorance if it means getting their sneakers for $10 less.
If, on the other hand, consumers began demanding specific minimum standards from
firms and took their custom elsewhere if the firms failed to comply, those firms would be forced
to change their practices and change them quickly. In the absence of such active consumerism,
how can we expect businesses to introduce CSR when doing so means they have to try and
interpret what consumers say they want—opinions that often contradict the criteria those same
consumers use to make their purchase decisions?
CSR: A Corporate Responsibility?
The focus of much of the CSR debate (and captured by the term ‘corporate social
responsibility’) is the assumption that firms have a responsibility to pursue goals other than profit
maximization. In particular, we propose the idea that the CSR community expects too much of
firms; that firms react to change better than they initiate change and that, if society decides it
wants greater social responsibility from firms, then perhaps it is a firm’s stakeholders (and their
consumers, in particular) that have an equal, if not greater, responsibility to demand this
behavior. More importantly, stakeholders need to demonstrate that they will support such
Loading page 30...
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility 3e
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
3
behavior. Firms that provide services that are not demanded by consumers will quickly go out of
business. With CSR, as with many aspects of business, it does not pay firms to be too far ahead
of the curve.
Milton Friedman versus Charles Handy
Two important articles on CSR frame this debate about the purpose of the firm. The first
article was published in the New York Times Magazine in 1970 by the Nobel Prize winning
economist, Milton Friedman—‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.2
In the article, Friedman argues that profit, as a result of the actions of the firm, is an end in itself.
He believes strongly that a firm need not have any additional justification for existing and that, in
fact, social value is maximized when a firm focuses solely on pursuing its self-interest in
attempting to maximize profit:
“I share Adam Smith’s skepticism about the benefits that can be expected from “those
who affected to trade for the public good.” … in a free society, … “there is one and only
one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities
designed to increase its profits.”3
The second article is a 2002 Harvard Business Review article by the influential British
management author and commentator, Charles Handy.4 In contrast to Friedman, Handy presents
a much broader view of the role of business in society. For Handy, it is not sufficient to justify a
firm’s profits as an end in itself. For Handy, a business has to have a motivation other than
merely making a profit in order to justify its existence—profit is merely a means to achieve a
larger end. A firm should not remain in existence just because it is profitable, but because it is
meeting a need that society as a whole values:
“It is salutary to ask about any organization, “If it did not exist, would we invent it?”
“Only if it could do something better or more useful than anyone else” would have to be
the answer, and profit would be the means to that larger end.”5
David Chandler and William B. Werther, Jr.
3
behavior. Firms that provide services that are not demanded by consumers will quickly go out of
business. With CSR, as with many aspects of business, it does not pay firms to be too far ahead
of the curve.
Milton Friedman versus Charles Handy
Two important articles on CSR frame this debate about the purpose of the firm. The first
article was published in the New York Times Magazine in 1970 by the Nobel Prize winning
economist, Milton Friedman—‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.2
In the article, Friedman argues that profit, as a result of the actions of the firm, is an end in itself.
He believes strongly that a firm need not have any additional justification for existing and that, in
fact, social value is maximized when a firm focuses solely on pursuing its self-interest in
attempting to maximize profit:
“I share Adam Smith’s skepticism about the benefits that can be expected from “those
who affected to trade for the public good.” … in a free society, … “there is one and only
one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities
designed to increase its profits.”3
The second article is a 2002 Harvard Business Review article by the influential British
management author and commentator, Charles Handy.4 In contrast to Friedman, Handy presents
a much broader view of the role of business in society. For Handy, it is not sufficient to justify a
firm’s profits as an end in itself. For Handy, a business has to have a motivation other than
merely making a profit in order to justify its existence—profit is merely a means to achieve a
larger end. A firm should not remain in existence just because it is profitable, but because it is
meeting a need that society as a whole values:
“It is salutary to ask about any organization, “If it did not exist, would we invent it?”
“Only if it could do something better or more useful than anyone else” would have to be
the answer, and profit would be the means to that larger end.”5
Loading page 31...
28 more pages available. Scroll down to load them.
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%
Study Now!
XY-Copilot AI
Unlimited Access
Secure Payment
Instant Access
24/7 Support
AI Assistant
Document Details
Subject
Business Management