CSR Committee Composition and Possible Impacts

Abstract

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been discussed and debated for many decades now, but there is still no universally accepted definition. There have however been two fundamental characteristics which have underpinned most definitions of CSR. These are: the voluntary and discretionary nature of the activity; and that it refers to actions beyond what are required by the law.

A number of scholars, have since the 1950s or so, attempted to define CSR. But in spite of this, as McWilliams et. al. (2006) posit ‘there is a no strong consensus on a definition for CSR. CSR has been used as a synonym for business ethics, defined as tantamount to corporate philanthropy, and considered strictly as relating to environmental policy. CSR has also been confused with corporate social performance and corporate citizenship’.

The definition given by World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2008) is: ‘The continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large”.

As per the UNIDO website, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility is a management concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and interactions with their stakeholders. CSR is generally understood as being the way through which a company achieves a balance of economic, environmental and social imperatives (“Triple-Bottom-Line- Approach”), while at the same time addressing the expectations of shareholders and stakeholders.’

Dahlsrud(2008) statistically analysed 37 definitions of CSR, and expounded on the findings in his oft- quoted paper. Through gathering and analyzing these definitions, he found five threads or dimensions widely prevalent: the Stakeholder dimension; the Social dimension; the Economic dimension; the Voluntariness dimension; and the Environmental dimension. He points out that ‘none of these definitions actually defines the social responsibility of business.’ Rather, they ‘describe CSR as a phenomenon.’

Thanks to the large number of definitions, many have taken the view that CSR is very loosely or subjectively defined—to the extent that the definitions are not very meaningful. Frankental (2001) says ‘CSR is a vague and intangible term which can mean anything to anyone, and is therefore effectively without meaning’. Lee (1987) defines it as an elusive concept. Others like Preston and Post (1975) call it subjective, ill-defined, etc.