Corporate social responsibility in the European Union: a new trade barrier?

Abstract

This paper contributes to the discussion about Corporate social responsibility (CSR), competitiveness and trade policies, and how trade barriers emerge between countries already committed to CSR and those for whom CSR is still gaining ground. The authors describe the development of CSR within Europe and explain its role in shaping trade relationships. Gaining access to the European market, and obtaining the ‘licence to operate’ in light of strengthening commitment to CSR, is an issue for many companies. For countries outside the EU it is important to understand what CSR means in the European context and to recognize its implications for conducting business in the region. Further, through its economic power and resources, the EU sets standards and influences international trade norms. The authors conclude that the EU establishes CSR as a trade barrier for non‐complying companies in the terms of organizational culture, communication, capabilities and compliance. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Business, social responsibility, and corruption

“…Both the first two of these three instruments have recently been considered the two most important CSR‐related instruments (Chen and Bouvain, ). CSR has gained higher profile and more applicable direction for organizations with them (Breitbarth et al ., ). More importantly, these two instruments are susceptible of integration, and there have been some collective efforts to establish such integration (UNGC/GRI, ).…”

Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies (L3Cs)

“…A centuries-old debate about the role of business in society continues as discourse on CSR. As social, political, and economic conditions have evolved, so too have beliefs about the role of business and CSR (Breitbarth et al, 2009;Panwar and Hansen, 2009). A polarized view of the role of business has contrasted ethical reasons for serving society with the neoclassical position that a firm should focus on profit maximization (Bowd et al, 2006;Hopkins, 2006;Wan-Jan, 2006).…”

“…Panwar and Hansen (2009) cited increased stakeholder expectations for business as the cause of greater attention to CSR; increasingly, stakeholders expect firms to contribute more than simply products/services, income, and jobs. Higher expectations have been attributed to backlash from corporate scandals, awareness of environmental degradation, new media enabling special interest groups to highlight negative impacts of global supply chains, a shift in societal values from property rights toward human rights, and the European Union's active promotion of CSR (Breitbarth et al, 2009;c.f. Panwar and Hansen, 2009).…”

“…Bottom-line benefits are always emphasized in conceptualizations of CSR by multi-stakeholder international associations (Wan-Jan, 2006). Breitbarth et al (2009;p. 242) observed that 'modern CSR is conceptualized and promoted in relation to its benefits for organizations.…”

Ethical infrastructure: A new requirement of the state's industrial policy

“…Among the four institutional infrastructures advocated in this paper, ethical infrastructure is an issue currently mostly discussed throughout the world, in developed, emerging and developing countries. The financial crisis has spurred the interest in the topic of ethical business behaviour among the academic and business community alike (Breitbarth et al , 2009). However, this remains least developed part of existing infrastructure.…”