Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 8 No. 2 (2022)
June 2022

Articles

Evolution of corporate social responsibility standards and their implementation in the strategies of the most powerful corporations: Guidelines for the CSR 5.0 concept

https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2022.0802.02

Published 2022-06-30

  • Magdalena Rosińska-Bukowska

Magdalena Rosińska-Bukowska
University of Lodz, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, International Business and Trade Department

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the article is to assess the advancement of social responsibility (CSR) models of the most powerful transnational corporations (Top TNCs) in terms of the implementation of CSR principles in accordance with the idea of creating of Creating Shared Value (CSV). Additionally, using the concept of the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM), to create guidelines for CSR 5.0. for the creation of CSV by companies.

Research Design & Methods: The paper, apart from literature review and its critique, presents the results of an authorial survey. The author conducted in-depth studies – using the Multidimensional Statistical Analysis, the Strategic Analyses. The paper presents the results of research (2010-2021) on the strategies of the Top TNCs. The list of key values constituting the pillars of companies’ strategies was prepared based on the GTM on the basis of Top TNCs case studies (the ten strongest players in each sector) operating on a global scale in various industries: automotive, electronics, pharmaceutical, consumer goods. The quantitative research of economic indicators and the qualitative analysis of 480 annual reports focus on the assessment of the implementation of the principles of sustainable development to improve the company’s ability to create CSV, and thus its competitive ability in the long term.

Findings: The original CSR 5.0 model was designed, adequate to the challenges of the 21st century related to the creation of CSV. The model was constructed on the basis of CSR principles disclosed as universal and included in the strategies of the Top TNCs studied and related to three layers of their intellectual capital (IC). With the use of GTM, a set of key values (three for each layer) was established, constituting the pillars of CSR 5.0, i.e. CSR for business models focused on CSV.

Implications & Recommendations: The emphasis on the creation of CSV is a requirement of 21st century competitiveness, which was confirmed by research for world leaders in four sectors. This is best seen in the area of innovation. The changes also concern the organizational and relational spheres. It is recommended to use the indicated directions of changes to prepare also other companies for new challenges. The CSR 5.0 model indicates the key areas of ICs of companies as requirements for securing long-term sustainable development (including in the era of automation and digitization, e.g. thanks to the personification of goods and services).

Contribution & Value Added: The paper presents an innovative approach pointing to the close relationship between intellectual capital – the implementation of CSR activities – long-term competitiveness as the ability to create CSV. Based on extensive research, the key elements of IC have been identified, reflecting the implementation of CSR in the innovative, organizational and institutional dimensions.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility, Creating Shared Value, CSR, corporations, Society 5.0

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Magdalena Rosińska-Bukowska

PhD in economics (2000, University of Lodz, Poland); Associate Professor at the University of Lodz (Poland). Her research interests include international business, international management , and international marketing.

References

  1. Ackerman, R. W., & Bauer, R. A. (1975). Corporate social responsiveness. Reston Publishing.
  2. Afuah, A. (2018). Business Model Innovation. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429446481.
  3. Aharoni ,Y. (2014). Coalitions and Competition (Routledge Revivals): The Globalization of Professional Business Services. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315858180
  4. Aharoni ,Y., Laszlo, T., & Connelly, B. L. (2011). Managerial decision-making in international business: A forty-five-year retrospective. Journal of World Business, 46 (2), 135-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.05.001
  5. Alexander, G. J., & Buchholz, R. A. (1978). Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 479-486.
  6. Blankenburg, D. (1995). A Network Approach to Foreign Market Entry. In K. Moller, & D. Wilson (Eds.), Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective (pp. 375-405). Kluwer Academic Publisher.
  7. Bockstette, V., & Stamp, M. (2011). Creating Shared Value: A How-to Guide for the New Corporate (R)evolution. Report FSG. https://www.fsg.org/publications.
  8. Breque, M., De Nul L., & Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0. Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/308407
  9. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper & Brothers.
  10. Brunswicker, S., & Chesbrough, H. (2018). The adoption of open innovation in large firms. Research-Technology Management, 61(1), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1399022
  11. Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. (Eds.). (2015). International Business Strategy: theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315848365
  12. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
  13. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.
  14. Crifo, P., Forget, V. (2015). The Economics Of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Firm-Level Perspective Survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(1), 112-130.
  15. Chemouny Liss, N., & Korzeniewska, A. (2021). Gospodarka 5.0. Strategia społeczna firmy zdecyduje o jej sukcesie. https://www.forbes.pl
  16. Ciffolilli, A., & Muscio, A. (2018). Industry 4.0: national and regional comparative advantages in key enabling technologies. European Planning Studies, 26(12), 2323-2343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1529145
  17. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132
  18. Delfi, (2019). Scientists predict: AI and humans in the Industry 5.0. https://www.delfi.lt/en/business/scientists-predict-ai-and-humans-in-the-industry-50.d?id=83095857
  19. Drucker, P. F. (2006). Managing for results: Economic tasks and risk-taking decisions. Collins.
  20. European Commission / EC (2021). Horizon Europe Strategic Plan (2021-2024). Publications Office of the European Union. https://eeas.europa.eu
  21. Eells, R. (1959). Social responsibility: Can business survive the challenge? Business Horizons, 2(4), 33-41.
  22. Fitch, H. G. (1976). Achieving corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 1, 38-46.
  23. Ford, R., & McLaughlin, F. (1981). Defining corporate social responsibility. A three group survey. Review of Business and Economic Research, 17 (1), 72-77.
  24. Fritsche, D. J., & Ehler, W. (1982). How ethical investors attempt to influence corporate social behavior. Business Forum, 7(1), 19-25.
  25. Gelfand, M. J., Aycan, Z., Erez, M., & Leung, K. (2017). Cross-cultural industrial organizational psychology and organizational behaviour: A hundred-year journey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 514-529. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000186
  26. Gereffi, G., Humphrey J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
  27. Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(144), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144
  28. Goodpaster, K. E., & Matthews, J. B. (1982). Can a corporation have conscience? Harvard Business Review 60(1), 132-141.
  29. Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.10025194
  30. Higashihara, T. A. (2018). A Search for Unicorns and the Building of “Society 5.0”. Davos, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
  31. Keim, G. (1978). Corporate social responsibility. An assessment of the enlightened self-interest model. Academy of Management Review, 3, 32-39.
  32. Krill, M. (2019). Industry 5.0 – networking między człowiekiem a maszyną. https://polskiprzemysl.com.pl/utrzymanie-ruchu/industry-5-0/23.07.2019
  33. Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Feld, T., & Hoffmann, M. (2014). Industry 4.0. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 6(4), 239-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4
  34. Lee, J., Bagheri, B., & Kao, H. A. (2015). A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3, 18-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MFGLET.2014.12.001
  35. L’Etang, J. (1994). Public relations and corporate social responsibility: Some issues arising. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(2), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881580
  36. Mohd, J., & Abid, H. (2020). Critical Components of Industry 5.0 Towards a Successful Adoption in the Field of Manufacturing. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, 5(3), 327-348. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424862220500141
  37. Mulej, M. (2011). Survival: Climate Change and Innovation of Habits Toward more Social Responsibility of Humans. The European Journal of Management and Public Policy, 11(1), 51-70.
  38. Nakanishi, H. (2019). Modern Society Has Reached Its Limits – “Society 5.0” Will Liberate us. World Economic Forum.
  39. Palazzeschi, L., Bucci, O., & Di Fabio, A. (2018). Re-thinking Innovation in Organizations in the Industry 4.0 Scenario: New Challenges in a Primary Prevention Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(30). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00030
  40. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (1999). Philanthropy’s New Agenda: Creating Value, Harvard Business Review, 77(6), 121-130.
  41. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 62-77.
  42. Porter, M. E., Hills, G., Pfitzer, M., Patscheke, S., & Hawkins, E. (2021). Measuring Shared Value. How to Unlock Value by Linking Business and Social Results. Report FSG. https://www.fsg.org/publications.
  43. Potočan, V., Nedelko, Z., Peleckiene, V., &, Peleckis, K. (2016). Values, environmental concern and economic concern as predictors of enterprise environmental responsiveness. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(5), 685-700. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2016.1202315
  44. Potočan, V., Mulej, M., & Nedelko, Z. (2021). Society 5.0: balancing of Industry 4.0, economic advancement and social problems. Kybernetes, 50(3), 794-811. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2019-0858
  45. Rego, A., Cunha, M. P., & Polonia, D. (2017). Corporate sustainability: a view from the top. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 133-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2760-8
  46. Rosińska-Bukowska, M. (2019). Human Capital and Intellectual Capital in Modern International Business – Based on Studies of the Strategies of Transnational Corporations. Comparative Economic Research, 22(2) 141-158. https://doi.org/10.2478/cer-2019-0017
  47. Rosińska-Bukowska, M. (2020). Global business networks. Concept – structure – competitiveness. Publisher of the University of Lodz. http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/8220-046-1
  48. Ruttan, V. (1997). Induced innovation, evolutionary theory and path dependence: sources of technical change. The Economic Journal, 107(444), 1520-1529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00063.x
  49. Sarfraz, Z., Sarfraz, A., Iftikar, H. M., & Akhund, R. (2021). Is COVID-19 pushing us to the Fifth Industrial Revolution (Society 5.0)? Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 37(2), 591-594. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.2.3387
  50. Savaget, P., Geissdoerfer, M., Kharrazi, A., & Evans, S. (2019). The theoretical foundations of sociotechnical systems change for sustainability: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 878-892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.208
  51. Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm. How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behaviour. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1723-1746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522300
  52. Shiroishi, Y., Uchiyama, K., & Suzuki, N. (2019). Better Actions for Society 5.0: Using AI for Evidence Based Policy Making That Keeps Humans in the Loop. Computer, 52(11), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2019.2934592
  53. Strange, R., & Zucchella, A. (2017). Industry 4.0, global value chains and international business. Multinational Business Review, 25(3), 174-184. 1 https://doi.org/0.1108/MBR-05-2017-0028
  54. Van der Zwaan, A. H. (1975). The socio-technical systems approach: a critical evaluation. International Journal of Production Research, 13, 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207547508942982
  55. Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance – financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266
  56. Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Stahl, G. K. (2020). Defining the Socially Responsible Leader: Revisiting Issues in Responsible Leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(1), 5-20, https://doi.org/0.1177/1548051819872201
  57. Wang H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility: An Overview and New Research Directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 534-544. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.5001
  58. Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Key Approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00584.x
  59. Zenisek, T. J. (1979). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Conceptualization Based On Organizational Literature. Academy of Management Review, 4, 359-368. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4289095
  60. Žižek, S. Š., Mulej, M., & Potočnik, A. (2021). The Sustainable Socially Responsible Society: Well-Being Society 6.0. Sustainability 2021, 13(9186). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169186

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.