CSR public policies in India's democracy: ambiguities in the political regulation of corporate conduct

Abstract

The rise of public policies in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) suggests a reassertion of state power over a phenomenon initially designed to weaken public authorities. But depending on policy objectives and underlying state-business relationships, CSR public policies seem to oscillate between the steering of corporate conduct towards political goals and the provision of political support to business interests. The present paper offers new perspectives on this ambiguity. Using social systems theory to guide a comparative study of two major Indian CSR policies, the analysis distinguishes two levels. At a functional level, the introduction of CSR in Indian regulatory politics produced more or less constraining expectations that open up opportunities for companies to participate in the performance of political functions. At an operational level, however, even a “mandatory” policy designed primarily according to political calculations let companies decide how they perform these functions. This persistence of voluntarism, which is supported by the semantic properties of “CSR,” consolidates the role of profit-driven calculations in the regulation of corporate conduct and, in the Indian case, in the redistribution of resources for social welfare. Research perspectives on the implications of CSR public policies for democracy are outlined in concluding remarks.

Four pillars of Luhmann’s analytical apparatus: Applications for communication research

“…Furthermore, the present paper showed the extendibility of these analytical frameworks that allows adopting them in tandem with other research methods. These research methods included -and are not limited to -case studies (Brier, 2006;Nobles & Schiff, 2004;Schirmer & Michailakis, 2011), interviews (Gregory et al, 2005;Krichewsky, 2017); focus groups (Kiisel & Vihalemm, 2014), and field observations (Boholm, 2008). As pointed out in the introduction, it is unfortunate that Luhmann's theory has remained marginal in the Anglophone communication scholarship.…”

“…(Andersen, 2007, p. 124) In communication research, semantic analysis is employed to elucidate the under lying distinctions constituting the concepts of interest and depict the nature of social phenomena. For instance, Krichewsky (2017) identified the semantic distinctions that affect defining corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and practices, including the form ethical / unethical, substantial / window dressing, or useful / not useful.…”

Developing the business-society nexus through corporate responsibility expectations in India

“…Reasons for preferring one variant over another are manifold (Bergman et al, 2015c) and may be traced to divergent motivations behind CR, most notably whether CR ought to be discretionary or mandatory. On the discretionary end of the scale, the corporate mandate is limited to the pursuit of economic responsibilities and the pecuniary self-interest of a firm (Abend, 2014;Bergman et al, 2015c;Krichewsky, 2017). The Friedman doctrine, which proposes that "[t]here is one and only one social responsibility of businessto use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game" (Friedman, 1962, p. 133) is a suitable representation of this position, although it should be noted that Friedman was more subtle than merely emphasizing short-term financial interests as the sole responsibility of an enterprise.…”

“…Carroll's pyramid remains one of the most widely cited and favoured CR models in the business literature due to its parsimony, flexibility and compatibility with Western norms (Krichewsky, 2017;Bergman et al, 2015c). Another popular approach occupying a centrist position is the so-called triple bottom line (TBL or 3BL), a conceptual framework that emphasizes the interdependence between economic, social and environmental responsibilities (Elkington, 1994(Elkington, , 1997.…”

“…Various incentives exist for corporations to engage in CR. Addressing social and environmental issues may ensure and augment corporate legitimacy (Scherer et al, 2013;Vancheswaran and Gautam, 2011), preempt state interference, limit disadvantageous regulations (Abend, 2014;Krichewsky, 2017) and secure long-term and sustainable stakeholder relations (Bondy et al, 2012;Branco and Rodrigues, 2006;Devinney, 2009;Holmström Lind et al, 2018;Sinkovics et al, 2015). Despite these benefits, discretionary engagement is frequently criticized.…”