“When I obey a rule, I do not choose.
I obey the rule blindly.”
Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations
(1958: 219; emphasis added)
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide a constructive criticism of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) standards. After pointing out a number of benefits and limitations in the effectiveness of CSR standards, both from a theoretical point of view and in the light of empirical evidence, we formulate and discuss a Paradox of CSR standards: despite being well-intended, CSR standards can favor the emergence of a thoughtless, blind and blinkered mindset which is counterproductive of their aim of enhancing the social responsibility of the organization. We analyze three problems that might underlie the Paradox—namely the problem of deceptive measurements; the problem of responsibility erosion and the problem of blinkered culture. We apply the philosophical tradition of American Pragmatism to reflect on these issues in relation to different types of existing standards, and conclude by suggesting a number of considerations that could help both CSR standards developers and users to address the Paradox.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
Our definition of CSR Standards is very similar to the definition of International Accountability Standards (IAS) recently adopted by Gilbert et al. (2011) in a Business Ethics Quarterly Special Issue dedicated to IAS. According to the authors, IAS are “intended to encourage and guide corporate responsibility, and to provide multinational corporations (MNCs) with ways to systematically assess, measure and communicate their social and environmental performance.” (Gilbert et al. 2011, p. 23).
Two of the authors have been for more than a decade (and still are) personally involved in international CSR standard setting initiatives—such as The Q-RES Project (de Colle et al., 2003), AA1000 (AccountAbility 1999), The Global Reporting Guidelines and ISO 26000), and have personally advised organizations in the adoption and/or the assessment of CSR standards. Therefore, our belief that CSR standards can be beneficial is not based on theoretical speculation alone, but also on practical experience in the field. Nevertheless, we focus in this work on those critical aspects that we feel need to be addressed by standard developers and users.
For example, while AA1000 does include a set of “accountability principles” that constitute its substantive part, but the core of the standard is in its process for the activity of social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting, and for stakeholder engagement.
We are grateful to Mike Peirce, former Chief Operating Officer of AccountAbility, who helped us developing some of these ideas.
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting these last two points.
Interestingly, the 2004 amendments of the Guidelines include a significant attempt to reduce these limitations by emphasizing the need for companies to “[take] steps to build cultures that encouraged employee commitment to compliance” (Hess et al. 2006). This shift towards integrity-based approaches can be seen as an attempt to limit the negative effects of an excessive focus on compliance, moving from a merely preventive approach (compliance with the law) to a more proactive approach focused on developing ethical cultures within organizations (Hess 2007).
The expression has been also quoted by The Economist, “The dangers of corporate social responsibility”, November 21, 2002.
Paradoxes can be of different types: some are strictly paradoxes in logical sense (like the Sorites paradox on vagueness, the Liar’s paradox on truth telling, or Gödel’s incompleteness theorems), where given a set of accepted assumption, their consequences generate logical contradictions. Other types of paradoxes (sometimes called aporias, e.g., by Derrida) have a pragmatic nature and are less stringent in the sense that they do not necessarily imply a logical contradiction. Our CSR Paradox is clearly of this second type, and indicates a situation where the consequences of a given action can be contrary to the intention of the action itself (similar to the problems of perverse effects of collective action studied in political science). We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their comments on this.
This example also shows how poorly designed performance assessment systems can exacerbate this problem, by introducing perverse incentives that lead managers to seek higher scores in whatever indicators their performance is measured against, no matter how meaningful they are to the overall performance of the organization.
As de Colle and Werhane notes, “it is the combination of moral imagination with moral reasoning that enables creative moral decision making” (de Colle and Werhane 2008, p. 760).
Sacconi (2007) suggested a similar approach, arguing that a proper standard design would ask for the following: (a) abstract and general principles–mutually acceptable by corporate stakeholders and capable to provide some pattern recognition for unforeseen events; (b) a few prophylactic rules of behavior that must be activated once a state of affairs seems to belong to the domain of application of a given principle; and (c) a dialog procedure (internal to the governance structure in order to ascertain whether any new situation satisfies or not the required degree of membership into the domain of application of a relevant principle.
For example, Freeman and Evan (1990) and Freeman (1994) suggested a model of corporate governance based on “fair contracts” between the corporation and each stakeholder group; Marens and Wicks (1999) discussed how the view that managers bear fiduciary duties toward corporate stakeholders—not just shareholders—is coherent with existing legislation in the US, Phillips (2003) identified an obligation of fairness that arises in any organization toward all the specific stakeholders that, interacting for their mutual benefit, contribute to the achievement of the organization’s mission; and Freeman et al. (2010) have discussed how Corporate Social Responsibility can only be meaningful if it is fully integrated in the way strategic decisions are made, i.e., part of the value-creation process (Integrated CSR) and not a add-on set of activities designed to increase the business legitimacy (Residual CSR).
References
AccountAbility (1999). AA1000-Accountability Framework. London. www.accountability.org. Accessed Nov 2012.
AccountAbility (2008). AA1000-Assurance Standard. London. www.accountability.org. Accessed Nov 2012.
Arendt, A. (1971). Thinking and moral considerations: A lecture. Social Research, 38(3), 7–37.
Barrett, W. (1979). The illusion of technique: A search for meaning in a technological civilization. New York: Doubleday.
Barrientos, S., & Smith, S. (2007). The ETI code of practice: Do workers really benefit?. Brighton: IDS.
Blair, M. M., Williams, C. A., and Lin, L.-W. (2008). The Roles of Standardization, Certification, and Assurance Services in Global Commerce. Paper presented at the conference CSR: Law, Operations, and Strategy, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., Nov 7 2008.
Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). The adoption of voluntary codes of conduct in MNCs: A three-country comparative study. Business and Society Review, 109(4), 449–477.
Clark, M. (2007). Paradoxes from A to Z (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
de Colle, S. (2006). CSR and management systems. In J. Alluche (Ed.), Corporate social responsibility. Concepts, accountability and reporting. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
de Colle, S., & Gonella C. (2002). The social and ethical alchemy: An integrative approach to social and ethical accountability, business ethics. A European Review, 11(1), 86–96.
de Colle, S., & Werhane, P. (2008). Moral Motivation across ethical theories: What can we learn for designing corporate ethics programs? Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 751–764.
de Colle, S., Sacconi, L., & Baldin, E. (2003). The Q-RES project: The quality of social and ethical responsibility of corporations. In J. Wieland (Ed.), Standards and audits for ethics management systems: The European perspective (pp. 60–115). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Delmas, M., & Keller, A. (2005). Free riding in voluntary environmental programs: The case of the US EPA WasteWise program. Policy Sciences, 38(2–3), 91–106.
Delmas, M. A., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2010). Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: Symbolic and substantive cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6), 575–601.
Dew, N., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2007). Innovations, stakeholders and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 267–283.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Ohio University Press Books.
Elkington, J. (2002). Trust us: The 2002 Global Reporters Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting. London: SustainAbility.
Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the sirens. Studies in rationality and irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.
Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 337–359.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory. The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2007). Discourse ethics and social accountability—The ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(2), 187–216.
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). From stakeholder management to stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 755–773.
Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A., & Waddock, S. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 23–44.
Henriques, A. (2010). Corporate impact: Measuring and managing your social footprint. London: Earthscan.
Hess, D. (2007). A business ethics perspective on Sarbanes-Oxley and the organizational sentencing guidelines. 2007. Michigan Law Review, 105, 1781–1793.
Hess, D., McWhorter, R., & Fort, T. (2006). The 2004 Amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and their implicit call for a symbiotic integration of business ethics. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 11, 726.
Hiscox, M. J., et al. (2009). Evaluating the impact of SA 8000 Certification. In D. Leipziger (Ed.), Social accountability 8000: The first decade—implementation, influence, and impact (pp. 147–165). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
ISO. (2010). ISO 26000. Guidance on Social Responsibility. Geneva: ISO.
Izraeli, D., & Schwartz, M. (1998). What can we learn from the U.S. federal sentencing guidelines for organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 17:1045–1055.
James, W. (1896). The will to believe. In L. Menand (Ed.). (1997).
James, W. (1912). Essays in radical empiricism. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155.
King, A., & Lenox, M. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The Chemical Industry’s Responsible Care Program. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 698–716.
King, A., Lenox, M., & Terlaak, A. (2005). The strategic use of decentralized institutions: Exploring Certification with the ISO 14001 Management Standard. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1091–1106.
Leipziger, D. (2003). The corporate responsibility code book. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Marens, R., & Wicks, A. (1999). Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2), 273–293.
Menand, L. (1997). Pragmatism. A reader. New York: Random House.
OFWAT. (2007). Levels of service for the water industry in England and Wales 2006–2007 Report. Birmingham: OFWAT.
Petersen, V. C. (2002). Beyond rules in society and business. Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar Publishing Limited.
Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Putnam, H. (2004). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rasche, A. (2010). The limits of corporate responsibility standards. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(3), 280–291.
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability—applying Habermasian discourse ethics to accountability research. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267.
Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Rorty, R. (1990). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Philosophical papers. Vol I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism and truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. London: Penguin.
Sacconi, L. (2007). A social contract account for CSR as an extended model of Corporate Governance (II). Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 77–96.
Saunders, H. D. (1992). The Khazzoom-Brookes postulate and neoclassical growth. The Energy Journal, 13(4), 131–148.
Seidl, D. (2007). Standard Setting and following in corporate governance: An observation–theoretical Study of the Effectiveness of Governance Codes. Organization, 14(5), 705–727.
Sellitz, C., Wrightsman, L., & Cook, S. (Eds.). (1961). Research methods in social relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Shell. (2009). ISO 14001 Registration in Shell Canada. Retrieved April, 2009 from http://www.shell.ca/home/content/caen/about_shell/how_we_work/iso/iso_notice.html. Accessed April 2009.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Simpson, D., Power, D., & Klassen, R. (2012). When one size does not fit all: A problem of fit rather than failure for Voluntary Management Standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 85–95.
Smith, A. (1776). Book I, Chapter V Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities, or of their Price in Labour, and their Price in Money. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of Nations. Retrieved on July 2006.
Stansbury, J., & Barry, B. (2007). Ethics programs and the Paradox of control. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(2), 239–261.
Terlaak, A. (2007). Order without Law: The role of certified management standards in shaping socially desired firm behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 968–985.
Terlaak, A., & King, A. (2006). The effect of Certification with the ISO 9000 Quality Management Standard: A signaling approach. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(4), 579–602.
Waddock, S. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87–108.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basic Blackwell & Mott Ltd.
Zadek, S. (2012). Titans or titanic: Towards a public fiduciary. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 31(2), 207–230.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Colle, S., Henriques, A. & Sarasvathy, S. The Paradox of Corporate Social Responsibility Standards. J Bus Ethics 125, 177–191 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1912-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1912-y