Advertisement

A Case Study of Micro Businesses in Jelutong Wet Market in Penang, Malaysia: Implications for CSR Scholarship

  • Teik Aun WongEmail author
  • Mohammad Reevany Bustami
Original Paper

Abstract

Scholarship on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has progressed to encompass a variety of theoretical frameworks. The adoption of Stakeholder Theory is prominent with regard to CSR among big businesses but its applicability towards micro and small businesses is contested. Micro and small businesses possess distinct differences most notably their less formal structure and more pronounced indigenous cultural diversity. To expand scholarship on CSR, this research explores the relatively less studied realm of micro businesses or informal businesses. Due to their rudimentary structure, micro businesses normally operate with other organizations, institutions, and each other, and are thus intricately linked with the local community. Hence, this research explores a locality and institution where micro businesses thrive—Jelutong wet market in Penang, Malaysia. This research offers a rare and arguably novel perspective. Firstly, the micro businesses are operating alongside and constantly interacting with each other within the institutional setting of a wet market (“Wet markets” in Malaysia are akin to farmers’ markets in America. They are usually established and operated by the local city or municipal council. Wet markets typically consist of a main market building and the surrounding roads and open areas. Meats, poultry, seafood, and vegetables are usually sold in the main market building that is sheltered. Slaughtering and de-feathering of poultry, and butchering of pork, beef, and lamb are usually conducted at the building premise and the floor is frequently wet hence the term “wet market.” The surrounding roads and open areas usually sell vegetables, fruits, hardware, clothing, toys, street hawker food, economy rice, savories, and a plethora of other goods and services.). Secondly, the said wet market is located in Penang, Malaysia that is highly diverse in terms of ethnicity, culture, religion, language, age, and socio-economics. The fieldwork employs multiple local languages for a high degree of authenticity and richness in data. Thirdly, this research adopts the methodology of phenomenology with a multi-layered approach. The fieldwork consists of thirty (30) primary interviews followed by five (5) verification interviews all conducted in local languages the respondents are most comfortable in expressing themselves, fifteen (15) non-participant observations, and ten (10) participant observations. An abductive research strategy is adopted and first-order constructs in the form of everyday typifications are adduced. The first-order constructs are analyzed along the layers of Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR. Subsequently, the second-order constructs are iteratively analyzed and three (3) typologies on CSR among micro businesses emerged. Finally, the findings from the second-order constructs are superimposed back onto the Pyramid of CSR. A different Pyramid of CSR emerges with fresh insights on the phenomenon of CSR among micro businesses. Retroductive reflection, reasoning, and analysis reveal Social Capital Theory as the most suitable theoretical framework and the implications for CSR scholarship are discussed.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Phenomenology Stakeholder theory Social capital theory Micro businesses Wet market 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There are no discernible conflicts of interest in this study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the home university and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Amaeshi, K., Adegbite, E., Ogbechie, C., Idemudia, U., Kan, K. A. S., Issa, M., & Anakwue, O. I. J. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in SMEs: A shift from philanthropy to institutional works? Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 385–400.Google Scholar
  2. Baden, D. (2016). A reconstruction of Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social responsibility for the 21st century. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1, 8.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (J. Richardson (Ed.)). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  4. Bustami, R., Na, D., Nasruddin, E., & A’mmaari, S. R. (2013). Exploring ISO 26000 and Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI): a neo-institutional analysis of two CSR institutions. International Economics Letters, 2(2), 7–15.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, A. B. (2012). A corporate social responsibility journey: looking back, looking forward. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference on CSR, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2016, 1, 3.Google Scholar
  9. Cavalieri, E. (2007). Ethics and corporate social responsibility. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 2, 24–34.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Soicology, 94, S95–S120.Google Scholar
  11. Crane, A., Matten, D. and Siegel, D. S. (2008). The oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (1st edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312–322.Google Scholar
  13. De George, R. T. (2012). A history of business ethics. from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/rourareas(2012).
  14. Demuijnck, G., & Ngnodjom, H. (2013). Responsibility and Informal CSR in Formal Cameroonian SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 653–665.Google Scholar
  15. Denscombe, M. (2007). The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects (3rd edn.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Denzin, N. (1984). The research act. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. London: Pitman Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Friedmann, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  19. Global Reporting Initiative. (2015). GRIG4-part 1-reporting-principles-and-standards-disclosure.Google Scholar
  20. ISO. (2010). ISO 26000 social responsibility (p. 8). Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, P., & Comfort, D. (2006). Reporting and reflecting on corporate social responsibility in the hospitality industry. A case study on pub operators in UK. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality and Management, 18(No 4), 329–340.Google Scholar
  22. Khoo, S.N. (2014). The Chulia in Penang: Patronage and place-making around the Kapitan Kling Mosque 1786–1957. Malaysia: Areca Book.Google Scholar
  23. Longo, M., Mura, M., & Bonoli, A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: the case of Italian SMEs. Corporate Governance, 5(4), 28–42.Google Scholar
  24. Lynes, J. K., Andrachuk, M., (2008). Motivations for corporate social and environmental responsibility: A case study of Scandinavian Airlines. Journal of International Management, 14, 377–390.Google Scholar
  25. Malaysia, B. (2015). Powering business sustainability. A guide for directors. Malaysia: Bursa Malaysia Berhad. Retrieved from http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/sustainability/.
  26. Masoud, N. (2017). How to win the battle of ideas in corporate social responsibility: The international pyramid model of CSR. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2, 4.Google Scholar
  27. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(No 2), 404–424.Google Scholar
  28. Md-Sum, S., Bustami, R., & Abdul-Gapor, S. (2012). Usaha Tanggung Jawab Sosial Korporat (CSR) dalam meningkatkan keupayaan komuniti: Kajian kes peladangan cili di Bukit Puteh, Kelantan [CSR initiatives in capacity-building of community: Case study of Chili plantation in Bukit Puteh, Kelantan]. Geogrfia online. Malaysia Journal of Society and Space, 8(5), 1–13.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, J. A. (2004). A buddhist and feminist analysis of ethics and business. Development. 47(3), 53–60.Google Scholar
  30. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78–92.Google Scholar
  31. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78.Google Scholar
  32. Radcliffe, S. (Ed.). (2006). Culture and development in a globalizing world: Geographies, actors and paradigms. Routledge: Taylor & Francis. pp. 141–142.Google Scholar
  33. Ringov, D., & Zollo, M. (2007). Corporate responsibility from a socio-institutional perspective. The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance. 7(No. 4), 476–485.Google Scholar
  34. Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 207–221.Google Scholar
  35. Schutz, A. (1963). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 51, 231–249.Google Scholar
  36. Steiner, G. A. (1971). Business and society. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  37. Tzanakis, M. (2013). Social capital in Bourdieu’s, Coleman’s and Putnam’s theory: empirical evidence and emergent measurement issues. Educate, 13(2), 2–23.Google Scholar
  38. Visser, W. (2006). Corporate citizenship in developing countries: new partnership perspectives. Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson, T. D. (2002). Alfred Shultz, phenomenology and research methodology for information behaviour research. Paper presented at the ISIC4: fourth international conference on information seeking in context, Universidade Lusiada, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  40. Xin, C. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1996). Guanxi: Connections as a substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (6), 641.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INTI International College PenangPulau PinangMalaysia
  2. 2.CenPRIS, Universiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations