Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility

Introduction

This report delves into various aspects of CSR, focusing on how it affects organizational profitability as seen in business firms’ financial statements, and evaluates its implications for shaping organizational strategic direction.

The report dives into the impact of adopting CSR strategies on organizational profitability, as reflected in financial statements. It gives a quick rundown of CSR’s evolution, its justification using stakeholder and legitimacy theories, its reporting in sustainability and financial reports, and the wide-ranging strategic implications for organizations practicing CSR and reporting it.

Entrepreneurs, especially multinational corporations, are taking full advantage of the opportunities offered by more open markets, (duly aided by technological innovations and greater economic liberalisation), to establish production processes in almost all the countries of the world.

The processes and effects of globalisation are however inconsistent to a great degree (Hans-Henrik & Sørensen, 1995). Concentrations and scarcities often arise due to globalisation. When considered in combination, these developments give rise to increasingly well-defined global power structures (Lerche, 1998).

The values of globalisation values have invaded the lives of people across nations through the agency of the Internet, satellite television and the distribution of global publications. Global marketing, worldwide stock markets, and the accessibility of roaming international venture capital are essential elements of the global market value approach. Steingard & Fitzgibbons, (1997), state that not a single society is protected by topography, practice or just plain indifference from the influence of globalisation. Nobody is out of reach of its extended influence.

Changing Organisational Attitudes towards CSR and Its Financial and Organisational Benefits

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is truly one of the most puzzling aspects of today’s business world (Visser, 2008). It’s evolving rapidly, appearing to be both complex and yet somewhat unclear (Visser, 2008). Despite efforts from academic experts and management practitioners to define CSR, there’s still no universally accepted definition (Visser, 2008). The World Business Council for Sustainable Development takes a stab at it, defining CSR as: “the ethical behaviour of a company toward society; management acting responsibly in its relationship with other stakeholders who have a legitimate interest in the business. It’s the commitment by business to act ethically, contribute to economic development, and improve the quality of life of the workforce, their families, and the local community and society at large.” (Petcu et al., 2009, p. 4).

Engaging in CSR and communicating it to stakeholders is crucial for building a positive corporate image, especially in terms of social, community, and environmental responsibility (Sun, 2010). It’s important to recognize that CSR is a relatively new concept, quite different from the attitudes of businesses towards society and the environment a few decades ago (Solanas et al., 2009).

Milton Friedman, a highly respected economist, famously argued that the main responsibility of business managers was to generate profits and increase shareholder wealth, as long as it was done within legal boundaries (Friedman, 1970). According to him, businesses should focus solely on making profits and paying taxes, leaving social benefits to government entities (Friedman, 1970). This perspective was widespread in the business world at the time, with most firms limiting their community involvement to occasional charitable donations (Friedman, 1970).

However, attitudes towards CSR have shifted dramatically since Friedman’s time (Adams, 2002). Nowadays, there’s a widespread consensus among management experts, business leaders, policymakers, regulators, and society as a whole that businesses should contribute to their communities, society, and the environment (Adams, 2002). It’s now understood that while businesses rely on shareholders, employees, and lenders, they also operate within larger communities and environments, benefiting from their interactions with them (Adams, 2002).

So, it’s crucial for organizations to ensure that their actions don’t harm anyone they interact with, whether inside or outside their organization (Adams, 2002). Focusing solely on profitability can lead to negative social and environmental consequences like pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, harm to workers, and negative impacts on consumers (Adams, 2002).

Global organizations like the UN General Compact are actively promoting CSR awareness and encouraging companies to join the CSR movement worldwide (Dick-Forde, 2005). Many businesses are voluntarily publishing detailed sustainability reports, even though they’re not legally required to do so in their annual reports or financial statements (Runhaar & Lafferty, 2008).

These changing attitudes are also highlighting the importance of adopting socially responsible and environmentally sustainable corporate strategies. Such strategies not only benefit the environment but also improve a company’s performance, productivity, and profitability (Pitts, et al., 2009). Studies have shown that organizations implementing CSR practices enjoy competitive advantages, enhanced profitability, and better financial performance (Pitts, et al., 2009). This understanding of CSR’s positive impact on profitability is motivating more companies to integrate CSR into their operations (Pitts, et al., 2009).

Use of Stakeholder and Legitimacy Theory to Explain CSR Strategy, Implementation, Reporting and its Financial Consequences

Over the past three decades, the development of CSR practice and reporting can be partly understood using the stakeholder theory and the legitimacy theory (Clarkson, 1995). The stakeholder theory suggests that companies disclose information about environmental sustainability because they have an obligation to their stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995). These stakeholders aren’t just impacted by a company’s actions; they can also influence its operations directly or indirectly (Clarkson, 1995).

While shareholders have the power to change management if they’re unhappy, other stakeholders like governments, regulators, activist groups, and consumers can also disrupt business operations if they’re dissatisfied (Freeman, 2004). Negative media coverage of environmentally harmful actions can damage a company’s reputation, reduce consumer interest, lower sales, and even prompt government intervention (Freeman, 2004). However, adopting and communicating effective CSR strategies can mitigate these negative consequences and contribute to increased profitability (Freeman, 2004).

On the flip side, the legitimacy theory aims to align the actions of businesses with social values and expectations of the broader environment (Wilmhurst & Frost, 2000). While the stakeholder theory focuses on the relationships between businesses and their stakeholders, the legitimacy theory looks at how companies interact with their overall environment (Wilmhurst & Frost, 2000). It helps identify conflicts and discrepancies, assuming that if a company’s values don’t match those of society and its environment, its legitimacy can be at risk (Wilmhurst & Frost, 2000). This misalignment can lead to problems like difficulty attracting customers, employees, and funding, as well as facing unwanted regulatory actions (Wilmhurst & Frost, 2000).

To address this, modern corporations use CSR strategies and disclose CSR activities to uphold their social contracts with society (Deegan, 2002). The legitimacy theory often comes into play in environmental accounting and reporting, seen as crucial for closing legitimacy gaps and demonstrating social responsibility (Deegan, 2002). Achieving social legitimacy can boost brand image, market perception, consumer interest, and ultimately, profits (Deegan, 2002). Indexes like the Dow Jones sustainability indices evaluate firms’ sustainability performance, providing investors and organizations with a benchmark for sustainability assessment (RobecoSAM, 2012).

CSR Accounting and Reporting

The growing attention from various stakeholders like organizations, policymakers, the public, and the media has pushed CSR into the spotlight, sparking the evolution of corporate social reporting and a greater focus on social and environmental accounting in today’s businesses (Petcu et al., 2009).
Social accounting is all about holding companies accountable, using reporting methods to measure and showcase their socially responsible behaviour (O’Connor, 2006). Environmental accounting, a key part of social accounting, zooms in on how businesses interact with the environment, covering everything from their environmental performance to their eco-friendly initiatives (Pitts et al., 2009). While this kind of accounting isn’t mandatory, it often sheds light on how adopting CSR strategies can lead to a better brand image, stronger customer relationships, cost savings, and ultimately, higher profits (Pitts et al., 2009).

Role of Sustainability Operations, Accounting and Reporting in Organisational Profitability

CSR or environmental accounting is basically about using different types of financial and non-financial data to boost environmental, economic, and corporate performance, all with the aim of achieving business sustainability (Kotler & Lee, 2005). It’s becoming increasingly clear that CSR accounting and reporting, especially when it comes to sustainability, are becoming crucial tools for tackling various environmental issues (KPMG, 2005).

Over the past decade, there’s been a noticeable uptick in the number of US, UK, and West European companies sharing CSR information (KPMG, 2005). The main goal of this kind of reporting is to document, analyze, evaluate, and report on the environmental and sustainability impacts of a company’s strategies and operations (KPMG, 2005).

The big picture aim here is to break down the environmental and sustainability costs of different operational processes in a transparent way, separating them out from other costs (Kotler & Lee, 2005). This kind of reporting is still evolving, but it’s now widely seen as essential for making business operations more sustainable in the long run (Kotler & Lee, 2005).

Green Accounting

Green accounting, a key part of CSR reporting, is all about measuring a company’s carbon footprint to figure out how to control and shrink it down the line (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).

A company’s carbon footprint is basically the total amount of greenhouse gases it emits (Visser, et al., 2008). This includes all emissions from activities like transportation, production, consumption, land use changes, and more (Visser, et al., 2008).

There are various ways to cut down on a company’s carbon footprint, such as recycling packaging materials, selling excess inventory to other organizations, and avoiding dumping non-biodegradable waste into the soil (Schema, 2011).

Interestingly, efforts to reduce a company’s carbon footprint often lead to improvements in efficiency, which can boost profitability and overall wealth for the business (Schema, 2011).

Triple Bottom Line

One of the most popular methods for CSR reporting is the triple bottom line (TBL) approach, which urges businesses to evaluate their CSR efforts across three key dimensions: people, planet, and profit (Brown et al., 2006).

In the “people” dimension of the TBL, the focus is on social responsibility and corporate involvement in society and the community (Elkington, 2004). This means ensuring fair wages and benefits for employees, promoting workplace equality and diversity, maintaining a safe work environment, and respecting the rights of outsiders affected by the company’s activities (Brown et al., 2006).

The “planet” dimension emphasizes environmental responsibility, encouraging firms to adopt eco-friendly practices and minimize their ecological footprint (Swindler, 2010). It’s about being proactive in protecting the environment for future generations by using eco-efficient processes and creating products and services that meet customer needs while reducing environmental impact (Swindler, 2010).

Lastly, the “profit” dimension focuses on economic performance and ethical business conduct (Swindler, 2010). It’s not just about maximizing profits through traditional means, but also about transparency, accountability, and creating value through sustainable practices like waste reduction, energy efficiency, and responsible resource management (Elkington, 2004).

Sustainability Reporting

More and more companies are feeling the pressure to embrace sustainability and eco-friendly practices due to increasing public demand (Laan et al., 2008). Despite the growing importance of CSR information in decision-making and reporting, CSR reporting remains voluntary and lacks standardization in accounting methods (Laan et al., 2008). This lack of consistency makes it tough to compare the CSR performance of different companies (Jastram, 2007).

One of the challenges is that the data needed for CSR reporting isn’t always readily available, as measuring the environmental impact and sustainability benefits isn’t straightforward (Jastram, 2007). While many firms in developed countries are integrating CSR into their strategies and publishing sustainability reports, these efforts are often separate from financial reporting (Mutch & Aitken, 2009).

Accounting, as it stands today, is highly regulated and institutionalized, with rules and norms governing how economic activities are communicated (Mutch & Aitken, 2009). It’s a system designed to ensure capitalism functions smoothly, relying on laws, agreements, norms, and traditions to maintain order (Mutch & Aitken, 2009).

Impact of CSR Reporting upon Profits in Financial Statements

CSR accounting and reporting remains a bit of a wild west, with no set standards or rules to follow, and it’s mostly up to individual companies to paint their sustainability efforts in a positive light (Keinert, 2008). Research shows that both companies and accounting standard setters are pushing back against the idea of including sustainability reporting in financial statements (Keinert, 2008).

But there’s growing recognition that taking sustainability seriously can pay off big time for companies. It’s not just about being environmentally friendly; it’s about boosting your brand, pleasing customers, impressing regulators, cutting costs, and running a smoother operation (Petcu, et al., 2009). Companies known for their strong CSR game often see benefits like higher sales, bigger market share, better prices, top talent wanting to work for them, and fatter profits (Petcu, et al., 2009). The problem? We still don’t have a clear, standardized way to measure and show these benefits in financial terms, so they often don’t make it into financial statements (Petcu, et al., 2009).

Verification of CSR Reports

So, here’s the deal with CSR reporting: it’s basically up to each company to decide if they want to do it, and there’s no external agency double-checking their work like they do with financial reports. This lack of oversight leads to a huge variety in the size, structure, and content of sustainability reports.
But things are changing. The rise of sustainability reporting worldwide is starting to bring about a bit of self-regulation. Take the UN Global Compact, for example. With around 7,000 member companies worldwide, they’re pushing for periodic CSR reports covering stuff like human rights, diversity in the workplace, fighting child labor, and environmental efforts.

And it’s not just the UN; other groups like the ACCA and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) are helping to standardize sustainability reporting too. The ACCA has set out principles and procedures for CSR reporting and even included sustainability reporting in their professional courses. Meanwhile, the GRI has created a whole framework for CSR reporting that’s gaining popularity worldwide. Their guidelines cover everything from gender equality to human rights and how companies impact local communities.

These efforts are making CSR reporting more consistent and reliable. While it’s not as tightly regulated as financial reporting yet, the trend is heading in that direction. So, in the future, we might see CSR reports becoming just as comparable and verifiable as financial statements.

Strategic Implications of Impact of CSR on Organisational Profitability

The research out there is pretty clear: CSR is becoming a big deal for companies nowadays. A big reason for this shift is the pressure from external groups like consumer associations, activists, and environmental organizations. Their efforts have raised public awareness about the importance of businesses being socially responsible and sustainable.

Now, when it comes to actually adopting CSR practices, there are some key findings with major implications for businesses. Let’s break them down:

• Improving Public Image: Companies that embrace CSR tend to have a better reputation in the eyes of the public. This can translate to more customers and ultimately, more profit.
• Meeting Stakeholder Expectations: Stakeholders, including investors and employees, are increasingly looking for companies to be socially responsible. By meeting these expectations, companies can attract and retain top talent and investors.
• Reducing Risk: CSR can help companies mitigate risks associated with things like environmental damage or labor disputes. By being proactive, companies can avoid costly legal battles or damage to their reputation.
• Enhancing Innovation: Companies that prioritize CSR are often more innovative. They’re constantly looking for new ways to operate sustainably, which can lead to new products, services, and revenue streams.
• Cost Savings: Believe it or not, CSR initiatives can actually save companies money in the long run. Things like reducing waste or energy consumption can lower operating costs and improve profitability.

So, all in all, embracing CSR isn’t just about doing good—it’s also about doing well financially.

1. Showing Commitment: CSR reporting demonstrates that a company is serious about assessing and managing its impact on society and the environment. It also lays the groundwork for engaging with stakeholders in meaningful dialogue.
2. Finding Opportunities: Sustainability practices and reporting help companies identify new opportunities to make money and save costs by using resources more efficiently.
3. Improving Reputation: Reporting on sustainability efforts boosts communication with stakeholders and improves brand image, making the company more reputable and trusted.
4. Emphasizing Integrity: Sustainability reporting enhances the focus on data integrity and public disclosure of goals, encouraging continuous improvement in sustainability efforts.
5. Enhancing Compliance: Strong sustainability reporting ensures better compliance with regulations and prepares companies to tackle emerging issues like greenhouse gas emissions.
6. Risk Awareness: CSR reporting helps organizations become more aware of sustainability-related risks and improves their ability to manage these challenges.
7. Motivating Employees: Engaging in sustainability reporting boosts staff awareness and motivation, aligns employee objectives with company goals, and attracts top talent.
8. Attracting Investment: Continuous improvement in CSR strategies and reporting attracts long-term investment, improves investor perception, and creates a positive financial environment.
9. Standing Out in the Market: Sustainability reporting helps companies differentiate themselves in the market and stay competitive by showcasing their commitment to social and environmental responsibility.

Each of these strategic implications points towards potential profitability boosts, as they impact customer perceptions, ensure regulatory compliance, and generate cost efficiencies that reflect in financial statements.

However, it’s crucial to remember that incorporating CSR into strategies requires genuine commitment from management. Simply adopting sustainability practices for image-building without a sincere approach can lead to disappointment and wasted resources, especially considering the initial investment of time, energy, and resources involved.

Conclusions

From our investigation, it’s clear that today’s businesses are increasingly adopting CSR practices in their strategies and operations, and communicating these efforts to stakeholders. While engaging in CSR can be complex and costly, it offers strategic benefits like enhancing brand reputation, capturing market share, shaping consumer perceptions, boosting sales, cutting costs, improving processes, and attracting investors. These positive outcomes directly impact profitability, as reflected in financial statements.

References

Adams, C. A. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 15(2), 223-250.

Brown, D., Dillard, J., & Marshall, R. S. (2006). Triple Bottom Line: A business metaphor for a social construct. Portland State University, School of Business Administration. Retrieved from www.recercat.net/bitstream/2072/2223/1/UABDT06-2.pdf

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Studies, 20(1), 92-117.

Crowther, D. (2000). Social and Environmental Accounting. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures- a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-312.

Dick-Forde, E. (2005). Corporate Environmental Accounting: A Review of the Literature and its relevance for the Caribbean. In D. Pantin (Ed.), The Caribbean Economy: A Reader. Ian Randle Publishers, Jamaica.

Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the Triple Bottom Line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The Triple Bottom Line: does it all add up. London, UK: EarthScan.

European Union. (2004). Euro abstract: Corporate social responsibility, 42, 1. European Commission: Directorate-General for Enterprise.

Freeman, E. R., Wicks, C, A., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Objective Revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.

Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Company. Retrieved from www.colorado.edu/…/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

FTSE. (2010). FTSE 4good index series. Retrieved from http://www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/index.jsp

Habisch, A., Jonker J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility across Europe. Springer Berlin: Heidelberg.

Hughes, S. B., Anderson, A., & Golden, S. (2001). Corporate environmental disclosures: are they useful in determining environmental performance? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 20(3), 217-240.

Jastram, S. (2007). The Link between Corporate Social Responsibility and Strategic Management. CIS Papers No.17, Centre of International Studies: Hamburg.

Jones, M., & Mellett, H. (2012). The British Accounting Review. USA: Elsevier.

Keinert, C. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility as an International Strategy. Physica-Werlag A Springer Company: Heidelberg.

Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

KPMG. (2005). International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting. KPMG, Amsterdam: Netherlands.

Laan, G., Ees, H., & Witteloostuijn, A. (2008). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: An Extended Stakeholder Theory, and Empirical Test with Accounting Measures. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 299-310.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

Moneva, J., & Archel, J. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30(2), 121–137.

Mutch, N., & Aitken, R. (2009). Being Fair and Being Seen to Be Fair: Corporate Reputation and CSR Partnerships. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(2), 92.

O’Connor. (2006). Empirical Research in Social and Environmental Accounting: A Meta review. Retrieved from http://www.vuw.ac.nz/sacl/about/csear2006/papers/oconnor,larry.pdf

Petcu, D., Gherhes, V., & Suciu, S. (2009). Corporate social responsibility – a conceptual approach. Retrieved from se.tibiscus.ro/anale/…/146.%20Gherhes%20Vasile.pdf

Pitts, C., Kerr, M., Janda, R., & Pitts, C. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Legal Analysis. Toronto: LexisNexis.

Pomering, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2009). Constructing a Corporate Social Responsibility Reputation Using Corporate Image Advertising. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(2), 106-114.

Richa, G., & Singh, A. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in India: A Study of Top 500 Companies. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 2(1), 41.

RobecoSAM. (2012). Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes. Retrieved from http://www.sustainability-index.com/

Runhaar, H., & Lafferty, H. (2008). Governing Corporate Social Responsibility: An assessment of the contribution of the UN Global Compact to CSR strategies in the telecommunications industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 479-495.

Saether, K. T., & Aguilera, R. V. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility in a Comparative Perspective. In A. Crane et al. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saleh, M. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure in an Emerging Market: A Longitudinal Analysis Approach. International Business Research, 2(1), 131-141.

Solanas, A., Leiva, D., Sierra, V., & Salafranca, L. (2009). Measuring and Making Decisions for Social Reciprocity. Behaviour Research Methods, 41(3), 742.

Sun, W. (2010). How to Govern Corporations So They Serve the Public Good: A Theory of Corporate Governance Emergence. New York: Edwin Mellen.

Swindler, A. (2010). Triple Bottom Line for Small Local Businesses-You can make it work. Retrieved from blog.gohuman.com/…/triple-bottom-line-for-small-local-businesses-

The Economic Times. (2010). Environmental accounting & reporting set to become mandatory for companies: Govt. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-11-18/news/27630532_1_sustainability-resources-annual-reports

UN Global Compact. (2011). Corporate Environmental Responsibility. Retrieved from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/Environment/

Uwalomwa, U. (2011). An Empirical Investigation of the Association between Firms’ Characteristics and Corporate Social Disclosures in the Nigerian Financial Sector. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(1), 60-74.

Van Lent. (2012). EAR-European Accounting Review. Retrieved from http://www.eaa-online.org/r/default.asp?iId=FGEJIK

Visser, W., Matten, D., Pohl, M., & Tolhurst, N. (2008). The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility. NY: Wiley.

Visser, W. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries. In A. Crane et al. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 473-479.

Willis, A. (2003). The Role of the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in the Social Screening of Investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 233–237.

Wilmhurst, T., & Frost, G. (2000). Corporate Environmental Reporting: A Test of Legitimacy Theory. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 13(1), 10–26.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Meeting Changing Expectations. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.