Consumers are putting pressure on corporations to be “socially responsible.” Thus explains the surge corporate branded reusable shopping bags and biodegradable paper products that have proliferated in the marketplace; however, corporate social responsibility (CSR) encompasses more than just corporate branded eco-friendly products. Although there is no universal definition of CSR, amongst the numerous theories the common theme is that corporations should have social initiatives that improve the well-being of communities. Smith explains that profit motivations exist when engaging in CSR activities, which he refers to as the “business case” and he also emphasizes the increasing motivation of business leaders to do the right thing, which he refers to as the “normative case.”[1] From Smith, one can ascertain that CSR policies and activities are created from a mixture of both of these motivations. Therefore, corporations have to “understand and proscribe the nature and scope of its CSR activities while balancing the business and normative cases.”[2]

 

The question is that does this balancing act of motivations actually happen. Hess and Warren argue corporations that have CSR polices or activities can be meaningless. As Hess and Warren explain, “firms that long used philanthropic activity as a way to improve their reputations may be using community-based social initiatives in a manner akin to “greenwashing” in environmental performance. That is, the positive public relations coverage provided by social initiatives deflects attention away from corporate practices that are harmful to society.”

 

Does this mean that CSR just another public relations tool? Is it feasible for corporations to make legitimate CSR decisions? This brief discussion will use Carroll’s four part pyramid model, as it is the leading CSR model, to serve as the theoretical framework and the latter part of the discussion will explore how public relations professionals can be leaders of implementing and CSR policies and activities.

 

CSR: Carroll’s Pyramid Model

Designed to encompass the entire spectrum of CSR, Carroll’s theoretical pyramid-model is a theoretical foundation of the development CSR polices and activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to Carroll, “[i]n summary, the total corporate social responsibility of business entails the simultaneous fulfillment of the firm’s economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. Stated in more pragmatic and managerial terms, the CSR firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical and be a good corporate citizen.”[3]

 

The foundation of the pyramid is the corporation’s responsibilities, which makes sense as if the corporation is not profitable it is unable to contribute to the community. With that said, here is where the mixed motive comes into play. According to his model, it is within the corporation’s best interest to conduct business in a legal and ethnical matter and have philanthropic responsibilities. The model is inherently flawed as the underlying theoretical assumption is the corporations have CSR policies not of any genuine or authentic interest but purely to add to the corporation’s competitive advantage. As Geva argues, “..social responsibilities are accepted to the extent that they can serve a part of the firm’s competitive strategy. The underlying assumption of an expectations-based model such as the CSR pyramid is that companies do not pursue their humane policies for altruistic reasons alone. They do so because the nature of society is such that they could not behave any other way and expect to survive as viable entities.”[4]

 

This then leads to the “greenwashing” affect in environmental performance. Does this mean corporations are in a catch 22 situation? The central weakness of Carroll’s CSR pyramid is that it does not factor in the role of communication. As Clark states, “[t]he role that communication has in building these quality relationship is an important one; one that is largely unrecognized by CSR researchers.”[5] It is the role of communication that will prevent the catch 22 situation for corporations.

 

Public Relations Integrating with CSR:

CSR and public relations professionals should work together as a common objective of both is to enhance and strengthen stakeholder and public relationships. This view is echoed by Clark as she states, “it is critical that these disciplines acknowledge their similarities and work toward combining their efforts. Furthering the understanding of relationships and the effects of communication will continue to aid researchers and practitioners in the building of bridges between CSR and corporate public relations.”[6]

 

Public relations professionals are uniquely positioned to fill in the theoretical gap in the CSR model as they are skilled in developing appropriate communication strategies and the ability to analyzing relationships that affect the corporation’s reputation and business. Clark argues, “[c]ommunication managers have the ability to scan the political, social, and historical environment regarding a myriad of issues; likewise, business competitiveness rests on knowing who will be affected by a company’s decisions.”[7] Thus, it is critical for CSR to factor in the role of communication is developing CSR policy.

According to Macleod’s research data, communication about a corporation’s CSR activities are well received provided that the public relations effort complies with best practices.[8] Therefore, by engaging public relations management in the CSR policy development would ensure that communication plan is developed alongside CSR activities.

 

Public relations professionals would not only have the ability to effective communicate CSR policy but also advise whether a certain CSR activity or policy would be appropriate in a particular community. As Freitag argues that CSR needs “leaders with the experience and skills

to analyze community issues, identify potential points of tangency between the issues and the organization, and develop creative approaches and policies to address those issues in ways that benefit the organization and affected constituencies.”[9] Public relations professionals are able to provide this leadership to CSR. In the words of Freitag, “Public relations managers are uniquely positioned, experienced and qualified to guide that effort.”[10]

 

 

---

 

 

[1] Smith, N.C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether and how? California Management Review, 45(4),p.52

 

[2] Freitag, Alan (2008). Staking Claim: Public Relations Leaders Needed to Shape CSR Policy Public Relations Quarterly  52 (1) 2008 p.38

 

[3] Carroll, A. B. (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders, Business Horizons 34(July-August): 39-48.

 

[4] Geva, Aviva. 2008 Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility: Interrelationships between Theory, Research, and Practice”  Business and  Society Review 113 (1) Spring  pg. 14

 

[5] Clark, C.E. (2000) Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility-an analysis. Public Relations Review, 26(3), pg. 376-7

 

[6] Ibid.5 pg 377

[7] Ibid 5 pg. 377

[8] Macleod, S. (2001) Why worry about CSR? Strategic Communication Management, 5(5), 8-9.

 

[9] Ibid 2 pg.40

[10] Ibid 2 pg 40.