Corporations and development

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the nature and role of contemporary CSR in the current neoliberal age. It offers an insight into the tension that exists between the ideologies of “neoliberal” shareholder value and that of “effective” CSR, and argues that both ideologies are fundamentally antithetical. It aims to identify and analyse the inter-connected but distinguishable barriers (ideological, practical and political) that militate against the realization of effective CSR. Design/methodology/approach The method applied is a critical evaluation of concepts and a thorough review of existing literature on neoliberalism, shareholder value and contemporary CSR. It uses existing literature to highlight the inability of contemporary CSR to transform into an effective mechanism for development. Findings The paper emphasizes the failure of contemporary CSR to equate to a successful mechanism for development. It concludes that the existence and operations of these barriers militate against the realization of an effective CSR regime capable of leading to development. Practical implications Given the current dominance of the “maximizing shareholder value” model of corporate governance internationally, it appears unreasonable to pin too much hope on contemporary CSR as a mechanism for development, especially in emerging economies. Neither the culture of corporations nor the pressures to which they are currently subjected encourage socially responsible behaviour. Originality/value The paper extends the body of knowledge in the area of contemporary CSR, by identifying and analysing the inter-connected but distinguishable barriers that render the CSR practices of corporations ineffective.

What Prompts Small and Medium Enterprises to Implement CSR? A Qualitative Insight from an Emerging Economy

“…Hamid, et al [40] identify four broad perspectives for supporting theories. The first theoretical group in CSR is called the "CSR tool", in which all social actions of business are accepted only if they contribute to the process of wealth creation, for example, organizational strategies that can be equitable and competitive [41]. The second set of theories is called "political ideology", in which the organization accepts a certain level of human rights and activities and participates in a certain level of social cooperation; for example, the theory of integrated citizenship and the theory of social harmony [42].…”

Prioritizing CSR barriers in the Indian Service Industry: A Fuzzy AHP Approach

“…While responsible organizations tend to fulfill their responsibilities towards their stakeholders, there is another set of organizations that questions the very concept of CSR and argues why they should spend their profits to fulfil such stakeholder demands (Harjoto and Laksmana, 2016;Wang et al, 2016). In such an organizational mindset, the focus primarily is on "maximizing shareholder values", which makes it totally irrelevant for them to think of socially responsible behavior (Nwoke, 2017). Moreover, stakeholders of such business organizations ask for better returns on the CSR funds vis a vis its implementation.…”

Barriers to Corporate Social Responsibility: the perceptions of a leading non-governmental organization

“…VIEIRA, 2014). In addition, the literature presents a theorization about ideological barriers to ethical CSR initiatives (NWOKE, 2017). Other studies address specific types of CSR barriers, such as behavioral barriers (GARAVAN et al, 2010) and obstacles to the internationalization process (LAUDAL, 2011).…”