Corporate Social Responsibility Movement - Essay Example

Corporate Society Responsibility (SR) Movement in UK The journey towards having a strong corporate social responsibility movement has been to meet the main demands of the society while creating a business opportunity while doing the same. Ideally, most of the issues that take place within an organisation have a lot to do with the growth of the society while meeting the core demands of the society (Carroll & Shabana 2010: 87). The only goal should be to keep the society in tandem with the organisation as the CSR seeks to transform lives and meet general demands of all the stakeholders. The UK is one of the greatest places where CSR takes a huge meaning, providing greater understanding of the way companies can assist societies meet their goals. The resources present and the ability to entrench the good morals amongst employees and companies as a whole (Gill 2008: 462). The main aim is to present these ideals based on the platforms that have been attained within a comfortable timeframe, allowing for the utility of the central business ideologies, as well as enhance the growth of the measures in place to make CSR a stable platform for assisting communities across the UK (Carroll & Shabana 2010: 88). The history of CSR in the UK had been a smooth one before the hurdles began making this one of the most difficult processes to undertake in the country. The aim was to provide a link between the corporate and the society, something that would see the regulation of activities within the required platforms. This would also see the growth of regulation based on the impact of transnational corporations that were setting base in the UK at the time (Gill 2008: 465). When the late nineteenth century saw a growing number of corporations in the world, the debate regarding the link between the corporations and the society became a debate that was in the public domain. The aim was to introduce new policies that would see most of these huge corporations share their profits with the society, or initiate new projects that would create and enhance regulation within the society (Carroll & Shabana 2010: 88). In the 1920s and 19230s, the main CSR strategies in place were trustee management that sought to maximize on wealth creation and growth of the community. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the corporate period was in motion and the UK companies took social responsibilities as the government did. The late 1970s saw the companies take up specific issues to handle, while the 1980s saw an increased responsiveness to community affairs. The 1990s and early millennium saw an increase in the CSR concepts as they became the base-point of completing other points of growth for the society as a whole. During the early twentieth century, companies were always working on meeting their demands while creating and enhancing new platforms that would see them prosper. However, this would imply redirecting their profits to other societal causes as a means of meeting the key demands of the society (Carroll & Shabana 2010: 95). The main aim was to proceed with a new mentality that would see corporations in the UK grow further while still having the main ideals of the society in place. One problem that arose during the initial stages of creating a strong CSR program at the time was the lack of a decisive definition of the term (Gill 2008: 469). The confusions that took place were enough to make different meanings that would see the company enhance and create new post-industrialisation impacts across the society. Ideally, the emergence of the large corporations was seen as a robbery without violence as most of the barons in the country began hoarding their wealth in such institutions (Mullerat 2010: 231). Philanthropy was born out of the need to control the amount of wealth that was held by one individual, and this was beginning to prove difficult amongst of the companies. The great depression of the 1930s was a key Point in the development of the CSR movement in UK, as new mechanisms had to be in place to reign on the rampant growth of these corporations and the failure to give back to the society a portion of what they earned (Gill 2008: 471). The UK, under the Labour government, decided to regulate and nationalise most of the corporations as a way of dealing with the emerging mess. One of the problems that the UK corporate world has undergone over the years is the confusion brought about by the uncertainty of the term in both policy and meaning. Hopkins notes that the definition of CSR in the UK has been more confusing and the political elite does not make things better. According to Hopkins, the UK definition of CSR by Nigel Griffiths, former Minister for CSR and MP shows CSR as a way of conduct that a business has when dealing with economic, social and environmental impacts that affect their operations. This allows them to maximise the benefits and minimise the demerits (2012: 24). Another definition noted by Hopkins was taken from the CSR group sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry. This definition gave an account of what CSR is not rather than what it is. It defined it as a tool aimed at impacting stakeholders within the society, and does not take the meaning of the immediate funds and expertise within the community but a reflection of the mission, values, impacts and resolutions achieved within the society by the same company (Hopkins 2012: 24). This definition shows that the UK has different ways of at CSR by looking at what should not be used to measure the values and impacts this has on the society. Ideally, the role of the company, in the UK, is to extend its mission to the society and meet the main demands of the society by reflecting on the main ideals that will increase integrity as it deals with its stakeholders. The UK’s role in the EU has also been a difficult attribute amongst most of the companies as they are not sure which of the definitions to follow (Carroll & Shabana 2010: 92). The EU at first was categorical that CSR should not replace regulations and legislations when it came to corporate companies working on mitigating the risks of social and environmental growth within the society. The main aim was to use CSR as a development goal for the sake of the society by establishing legal frameworks that could define a level playing ground for all companies within the EU (Gill 2008: 474). It later changed this to imply voluntary involvement in societal activities. Such confusions amongst some of the best CSR activists in the world has made corporate companies in the UK to lose faith in meeting these demands and demoralising the growth of these companies to their full potential. The growth of such companies will only be defined well by streamlined application of policies within the society and across the corporate world. In fact, Mullerat (2010: 239) notes that the UK has been a leader in the CSR movement because of the support and commitment from both the government and the companies in the country. Leading think-tank institutions in the same have also made it easy to define how CSR should be carried out in the country, allowing most of the companies to pick out a concrete reinforcement across the society. Mullerat notes that the UK has made so much growth in the area of CSR, meeting the critical demands of the CSR movement over time (2010: 239). However, Ward and Smith (2006: 4) observe something different in the CSR activities taking place within the UK. They observe that even if the UK is considered a global leader in CSR, there are several issues limiting the realisation of its CSR activities across the society. The society was quick to tell the authors that the UK was good at making great strides in the field of CSR but could not meet the general demands of corporate accountability. No matter how many companies made strides in dealing with such frameworks, it was very difficult to have any faith in the CSR activities amongst some of the companies. The two authors see the CSR activities as dying out if companies do not take an active step towards meeting the main demands of the society (Mullerat 2010: 240). For a long time, the UK companies were very sceptical about the use of CSR except for the global multinationals that were very intent on making a lasting impression amongst local individuals (Carroll & Shabana 2010: 100). This made it difficult to understand the growth of the issues trending in the country and most of them did not want to be part of CSR. However, with time, the aspect of CSR became a common attribute amongst a majority of the individuals in place, and that made it easy to grow the main aspects of the society based on the development approaches and innovative CSR practices that were to be presented within the society at the time (Mullerat 2010: 242). However, challenges that emerged did not have a means of resolution, and this made it difficult to meet the main demands of this movement. Ward and Smith opine that the growth of the society will only meet its demands by giving back to the community while at the same time coming to the aid of those in the business. Most of the individuals do not understand that the quality amongst CSR programs allows more to be part of the society and work towards such initiatives. However, the UK has been unwilling to bring about policies that will harness the intended value of CSR in the society (Ward and Smith 2006: 6). Mid 1990s saw the rise of a theory that would shape the way people thought and reviewed CSR. The triple bottom line had three main parts, which were social, environmental, and financial. Companies wanted to sharpen their skills on these three and use them to meet their main demands as they sought to profit from the three main pillars: people, planet and profit. The sustainability needed would only emerge from such a framework, which found favour in most companies around the UK (Carroll & Shabana 2010: 101). Some of the consumers today agree that the role of dealing with rogue companies only depreciates by handling the main issues clogging CSR issues insincerely. This means that the country has to work on meeting the main demands of the growing corporations while at the same time creating new attributes that redefine the growth of CSR based on the available platforms. The aim is to meet the growing demands of the society while entertaining new platforms for the growth of the society as a whole (Ward and Smith 2006: 9). Several lobby groups emerged over the 1970s and saw a change in sustainability across the UK. This made it very easy to agitate for change, making it a priority for most companies. This led to boycotts in some of the companies such as Nestle in late 1970s as a way of forcing them to meet the demands of these lobby groups. The new millennium saw a fresh bid to see the society grow to a bigger height, making it grow into one of the most common attributes within the society (Ward and Smith 2006: 12). This made it easier to choose the best way of dealing with societies as companies began understanding the goals that could be achieved using CSR. However, reining in on errant companies was a huge challenge, and that made people view CSR as a ploy to hoodwink consumers. If nothing substantial is done soon, CSR may be on its deathbed in the UK (Ward and Smith 2006: 13). References Carroll, A.B. & Shabana, K.M. (2010) "The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice," International Journal of Management Reviews, pp. 85-105. Gill, A. (2008) "Corporate Governance as Social Responsibility: A Research Agenda", Berkeley Journal of International Law, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 452-478. Hopkins, M. (2012) Corporate social responsibility and international development: is business the solution? New York: Earthscan. Mullerat, R. (2010) International corporate social responsibility: the role of corporations in the economic order of the 21st century, London: Kluwer Law International. Ward, H. & Smith, C. (2006) Corporate social responsibility at a crossroads: futures for CSR in the UK to 2015, London: Russell Press. Read More