Filed under: CSR & Sustainability, Innovation & technology | Tags: actor network theory, CSR, Michael Porter, NGO, stakeholders, Sustainability
It is one of those questions often popping up: does corporate social responsibility (CSR) make sense?
My answer to this question is: Yes! if seen through the lenses of the (reactive) license to operate, or, preferably, the (more proactive) as a vehicle to enforce social innovations. Both approaches request an understanding of the market as a social space. The former focuses on the companies’ allowance to transact its goods and services. The latter employs the dynamics of this social space.
CSR is not against the market – but part of the market. Let me first address the notion of the market. Regardless of ideological discussions about the market, I employ the concept of the market as a social space making transactions of goods and services possible. Some scholars, such as institutionalists and actor-network scholars, argue that if markets are social constructions, this includes those formal rules and regulations made by policy makers as well as less formal rules made by society. Or put in short: businesses can only transact goods and services if they take its stakeholders into account. This is the core of my perception on CSR.
Long-term Maximization of Stakeholder’s Value. One group of opponents to CSR claim that the core obligation of any enterprise is to maximize economic returns to its shareholders. Against this has strategy guru, Michael Porter, proposed that is not sufficient for a company only to maximize shareholders’ returns. The firm will have to maximize the long-term value of its stakeholders. I support Porters’ point of view. But I do, nevertheless, disagree with the very narrow interpretation of his positioning theory vis-à-vis to competitors. Making CSR a device for brand differentiation, risk management or license to operate only is too short-sighted and neglects the potential for business development from the dynamics and changes among stakeholders.
Business development. Technology – being a product or a process – is in its essence an answer to social needs. Those needs can be defined by consumers, policymakers, NGO’s or any other stakeholder of the company. Those stakeholders belong to the same social space which makes the transaction of its goods and services possible. The clever firm engages into dialogues with its stakeholders for it to smoothly transact goods and services. But the intelligent company learns from this dialogue and employ it to identify social needs and hence making it a source of innovation. If successful, long-term value is guaranteed for both stakeholders and shareholders.
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment
Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.
Comment by fussball 2. March 2009 @ 14:05