Abstract
Interest in and uptake of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has grown over recent decades; partly as a reaction to various corporate scandals, otherwise as part of a more proactive drive by key personnel or stakeholders. Given though that CSR is, by definition, a voluntary activity there has been speculation as to how resilient such activities are, particularly in times of economic constraint.
This study aims to garner views across a range of UK organisations in order to assess the resilience of their CSR activities. A total of 121 members of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply responded to a survey, all of whom were senior executives, directors and managers operating within the UK.
Results show that organisations have been involved with a wide range of environmentally and socially responsible activities in the past five years. The most common reason for undertaking CSR was "it's just the right thing to do", indicating relational and moral motives that go beyond a pure economic 'business case'. Regulators/legislators, customers and employees were rated as significant and influential stakeholders. In contrast, the media, lobby groups and Unions/Works Councils were deemed to have little influence on CSR activities.
No organisations reported doing too much CSR, whilst 70.3% were content with their current levels and 29.7% felt that they were doing too little CSR. Looking ahead to the next five years, 90.8% of respondents predicted an increase in environmentally responsible activity and 88.3% predicted an increase in socially responsible actions (within which a significant number were forecasting a substantial increase). Various drivers behind this forecast increase in CSR activity are given. This study therefore finds that CSR appears to be a more resilient concept than some reports have suggested.
Introduction
Whilst Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not a new phenomenon, the growth in adoption by organisations over the last couple of decades suggests that CSR is reaching a 'tipping point' (Gladwell, 2000). Bowd et al. (2006, p.147) believe that CSR is now "neither a fad nor an optional extra." However, there have been many articles in the media questioning the resilience of CSR programmes in the face of global recessionary pressures (e.g. Macalister, 2008, Willman, 2008; Northedge, 2009); suggesting that CSR programmes would be the first thing to be axed. In 2005, a Business for Social Responsibility report developed three potential scenarios for 2015, that CSR would either fade away, integrate into mainstream business or completely transform the business/society dynamic (White, 2005). A year later, a further study described CSR as being 'at a crossroads' with the need for radical change in order to prevent the death of CSR by 2015 (Ward and Smith, 2006). This brings into question the resilience of CSR programmes and the interplay between CSR theory and practice.
Thirty years ago, Thomas Zenisek wrote of the lack of either empirical and/or theoretical support for several definitions and models of corporate social responsibility (Zenisek, 1979). More recent work suggests little progress: "Unfortunately for both academicians and practitioners, the analysis of CSR is still embryonic, and thus theoretical frameworks, measurement, and empirical methods have not yet been resolved." (McWilliams et al., 2006, p.2). Many articles highlight the lack of an agreed definition for CSR (e.g. Dahlsrud, 2006; Weber, 2008), giving rise to a potential identity crisis as to exactly what is included and what is not (environmental/social, internal/external, proactive/reactive (Aguilera et al., 2007), voluntary/mandated activities). Okoye (2009) uses the seven criteria proposed by Gallie (1956) to confirm CSR as being an essentially contested concept, thereby explaining multiple conceptions of CSR. For this article, we encourage a broad and inclusive definition along the lines of CSR being "a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis" (Commission of the European Communities, 2001, p.8.). We are therefore using the term 'CSR', for the purposes of this research, to include what may also be known as 'sustainability', 'philanthropy', 'citizenship' and other similar terms.
However, on the basis of CSR being a voluntary activity (Commission of the European Communities, 2001), this study aims to gauge how resilient CSR programmes are in the face of organisational change, especially that driven by a global recession.
Some historical developments of CSR
Werther and Chandler (2006) suggest the roots of CSR can be found in ancient Chinese, Egyptian and Sumerian writings that comprised rules for commerce and consideration of wider public interests. Ancient Greeks were offended by the use of wealth as its owner pleased without regard for 'the interests of humanity and of social consequences' (Arenson, 1971). Furthermore, the Hammurabi code (in Mesopotamia around 1700BC) decreed that "builders, innkeepers or farmers were put to death if their negligence caused the death of others, or major inconvenience to local citizens" (Asongu, 2007, p.8).
The Industrial Revolution, together with the works of Adam Smith and early industrial philanthropists, saw the start of a more recently recognisable CSR debate. Progress was somewhat halted by the Joint Stock Act of 1844 and the 1862 Companies Act, where the separation of management from ownership made philanthropy harder to justify. The late 1800s to early 1900s though saw a period of enlightened self-interest (Boddy, 2008) from philanthropic industrialists such as Coleman, Cadbury, Rowntree and Lever. The 'legal model' of CSR emerged during the 1930s to 1950s with regulatory frameworks (child labour, working hours, weights and measures, hygiene), Trade Union rights, and local government provision of infrastructure, sewerage, fresh water and assistance of last resort (Habisch et al., 2005). The Beveridge Report introduced family allowances in 1945 and National Insurance with the National Health Service in 1946. Full employment became government policy during the British post-war Welfare State and the UK Government overtook business in terms of CSR-related activities (ibid.).
Werther and Chandler (2006) identify the 1950s onwards as being the onset of the modern era of CSR, with product safety, honest advertising, employee rights, environmental sustainability, ethical behaviour, community development, etc. being supported by a growing number of organisations. This period saw changes in society (affluence, education, global media, rising expectations, entitlement mentality, rights movement, victimization philosophy, business power, changing social contract) and the rise of 'social activism'. During the 1980s, stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Donaldson and Preston, 1995), which encouraged organisations to look beyond just shareholder return, came into the mix. Many authors infer that CSR has now reached a stage whereby organisations are duty bound to at least consider, if not conform to, defined social, ethical, legal and responsible standards (Maon et al., 2009).
Current models of CSR
The CSR literature is rather fragmented (perhaps because of its relatively nascent existence in specialised publishing outlets), and the definitional issues have been highlighted above. Carroll (1979) is an earlier example of grouping CSR activities to give legal, ethical, economic and discretionary aspects. More recent work on classifying CSR theories include the instrumental, political, integrative and ethical sub-groups proposed by Garriga and Mele (2004); or the utilitarian, managerial and relational categories identified by Secchi (2007). A proactive/reactive dimension also exists. Brown (2008, p.1) suggests reframing the origins of CSR to recognise it as "survivalist reaction to crisis" rather than overemphasise CSR as "an unambiguously ethical model of managerial proactive effectiveness". So there exists a continuum ranging from responsive CSR (acting as a good corporate citizen and mitigating existing or anticipated adverse effects from business activities) to strategic CSR which moves beyond responsive CSR "to mount a small number of initiatives whose social and business benefits are large and distinctive" (Porter and Kramer, 2006, p.11).
Strategic CSR
Rather than simply measure CSR in terms of rigid (short-term) economic return and a business case, Burke and Logsdon (1996) suggest that organisations look for 'fit' between their CSR activities and the firm's strategic interests in a broader sense. Aspects here include: 1) the centrality or closeness of fit between CSR activities and the firm's mission and objectives, 2) specificity referring to CSR benefits being directly internalised to the organisation rather than 'shared' around the industry in general, 3) proactivity and planned anticipation towards emerging trends, 4) voluntarism in CSR actions without externally imposed compliance requirements, and 5) visibility and the ability for the firm to gain recognition from stakeholders. Similar views for taking a longer term view of aligning and integrating CSR activities into an organisation's strategy are given by Stainer (2006), Porter and Kramer (2006) and Faick and Heblich (2007) for instance.
Warhurst (2005) argues that businesses should re-invent themselves to go beyond the paradigm of simply 'doing no harm' and to proactively be a 'force for positive good' in society. A further dimension relates to the amount of CSR 'embeddedness' within the organisation; ranging from CSR as a token gesture, tick-box, or add-on (i.e. an instrumental superficial adoption), through to strategic CSR being "considered as an integrated practice across the organization" (Brooks, 2005, p.403). Strategic CSR is so called when "it yields substantial business-related benefits to the firm, in particular by supporting core business activities and thus contributing to the firm's effectiveness in accomplishing its mission" (Burke and Logsdon, 1996, p.496).
The business case for or against CSR
Hinings and Greenwood (2002) via Bies et al. (2007) suggest that the search for a CSR business case coincided with the move of studying corporations from within sociology departments to business schools. Orlitzky et al. (2003, p.403) suggest, in a meta-analytic study, that "corporate virtue in the form of social responsibility and, to a lesser extent, environmental responsibility is likely to pay off". Carter et al. (2000) found that 'environmentally-friendly' purchasing is significantly (and positively) related to both net income and cost of goods sold, and so positive examples of a business case for CSR exist. However, counter-examples exist for example in The Economist (2005), claiming that CSR is anti-Smith (in terms of against rational self-interest and stockholder interest) and against capitalist principles. In trying to move the business case away from pure economic rationality, others (e.g. Stoll, 2008 and Brooks, 2009) have developed a moral argument to support the case for ongoing CSR activity. Collier and Wanderley (2005, p.169) state that "businesses, whether global or local, must recognize that as agents of global change they are acting not simply as economic but also as moral agents.", arguing for the primacy of human rights in all of an organisation's dealings.
CSR and supply
Much of the CSR in the supply chain literature focuses on the private sector although there are examples in the public sector (which has a significant potential for contribution to sustainability given its substantial expenditure, see Preuss, 2009) and a mix of public/private cases (e.g. Harwood and Humby, 2008). Most CSR enquiries are conducted on supply chains in large-scale organisations, with relatively little on SMEs despite SMEs playing an important role both numerically and economically (Jenkins, 2004; Baden et al., 2009, Fassin, 2008). Many SMEs directly feed the supply chains of large-scale corporations and so are intrinsically linked to CSR activities, often on a global scale.
Many sustainable supply chain articles focus solely on either environmental or social aspects, with the split also being linked to particular sectors (mining versus the apparel industries for instance), and few study both aspects and the link to performance (see Pullman et al., 2009). In a detailed review of existing literature, Srivastava (2007) classifies 'green' supply chain management research into: 1) aspects of importance (justification), 2) green design (environmentally conscious design and life-cycle analysis), and 3) green operations (green manufacturing and remanufacturing, reverse logistics and network design, and waste management), although social aspects of 'green' supply chains are conspicuous by their absence.
Krause et al. (2009, p.18) state that "a company is no more sustainable than its supply chain. As such the purchasing function becomes central in a company's sustainability effort." Maignan et al. (2002) identify a continuum of socially-responsible buying strategies (reactive → defensive → accommodative → proactive) depending on how stakeholder and non-economic criteria are integrated into an organisation's purchasing decisions. Despite more than half of the business leaders surveyed by Riddleberger and Hittner (2009) regarding sharing of stakeholder data as a high priority in making purchasing decisions, they found that few companies are actually collecting social and environmental performance data from their suppliers.
CSR resilience
There appear to be few articles that assess the impact of change on CSR programmes over time. Kujala (2010) presents a longitudinal study of Finnish managers, finding a positive change in perceptions of stakeholder issues between 1994 and 2004. Ward and Smith's (2006) 'Futures for CSR in the UK to 2015' study provides a thoughtful 'window' into possible developments, although the number of workshop participants is somewhat limited. White's (2005) study also develops scenarios for CSR in 2015 but lacks empirical support.
Min-Dong (2008, p.53) suggests that the current state of research places excessive emphasis on the business case for CSR and that "future research needs to refocus on basic research in order to develop conceptual tools and theoretical mechanisms that explain changing organisational behaviour". What appears lacking in the literature, and which forms the aim of this research, is an empirical study investigating the drivers and resilience of CSR activities.
Survey design and respondent demographics
An organisation's supply chain is central to the delivery of its products or services, and is often the focus of organisational change. For that reason, members of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS) are ideally placed to give their views for this research. Established in 1932, CIPS "exists to promote and develop high standards of professional skill, ability and integrity among all those engaged in purchasing and supply chain management." (http://www.cips.org/aboutcips/). A total of 1,701 surveys were sent to members who held senior positions (Chief Executives, Managing Directors, Directors or Senior Managers) in UK-based organisations. It was felt that senior CIPS members would be well placed to give insights into CSR activities as they were responsible for making strategic decisions on product/service sourcing, supply chain policies, and were knowledgeable of broader organisational changes.
In order to address the research aims, the survey was constructed in four main sections: 1) general organisational characteristics and metrics, 2) an overview of current CSR practice, 3) a review of CSR and organisational change in the past five years, and 4) looking ahead to CSR and organisational change in the next five years. At times, the questions referred to CSR activities in general, whereas in certain areas questions relating to the specific topics of environmental and social activities were asked separately. In order to minimise potential for social desirability bias, especially given the nature of the topic, respondents were informed that all responses would be treated in confidence and that results would be presented on a non-attributable basis.
The surveys were administered in hardcopy via the postal system throughout the summer of 2009. In all, 121 completed surveys were returned (7.11% response rate). The age of organisations ranged from 2 years to 558 years (mean = 62.6 years, n=119). Annual turnover ranged from £70,000 to £36billion (mean = £3.09billion, n=116). Using the EU definition of an SME (<250 headcount and turnover ≤ € 50 million), this results in 20 SMEs and 101 large organisations (16.5% and 83.5% respectively). Organisations operated in a wide range of industrial sectors, the most commonly occurring being 'construction & materials' (9.3%), 'education' (7.9%), 'aerospace & defence' (7.4%), 'healthcare equipment & services' (7.4%) and support services (6.9%). Due to the diverse spread of organisations across sectors, the sectors were condensed into macro-sectors. These were primary (n=9, 7.5%), secondary (n=32, 26.7%), tertiary (n=50, 41.7%) and the fourth contained 29 organisations (24.2%) operating across more than one macro-sector.
Analysis and findings
When asked about current CSR activities, 35% of organisations had a standalone CSR department, unit or specific job role(s) relating to CSR, leaving 65% who did not. All of the organisations with a separate CSR department were large (accounting for 42.3% of large organisations). Within that group, there were no correlations to turnover or age of organisation in relation to the existence of a separate CSR department. Table 1 shows the reporting lines, which identifies that 46% of CSR departments report directly to either the CEO or Board of Directors indicating the importance placed on CSR within the organisations.
Table 1: Reporting lines for those organisations with a standalone CSR department, unit or specific job role(s) relating to CSR (n=39)
CSR function reporting to
Percentage
CEO
35.9
Operations
17.9
Health & Safety/Environment
12.8
Board of Directors
10.3
Other
7.7
HR Director
5.1
Legal
5.1
Corporate Affairs/Communications
2.6
Finance Director
2.6
Only 18 companies declared their annual spend on CSR activities (minimum = £10,000; maximum = £3,000,000; mean = £543,541). Of those who declared an amount, SMEs spent between £10,000 and £150,000 per annum on CSR whereas large organisations spent between £30,000 and £3,000,000 per annum. Spend on CSR activity equates to 0.22% of turnover on average, with a maximum of 1.43%.
The extent of CSR activity over the past five years
Table 2 shows the types of CSR activities undertaken by the respondent organisations over the past five years. Whilst this did not capture the extent of each activity, the frequency of engagement across a variety of activities is evident. As expected, large organisations currently do a wider range and number of CSR activities than SMEs. The number of environmental activities is significantly lower for SMEs (M = 4.5) than for large organisations (M = 7.1) (t = 4.3, p<0.001). Similarly, the number of social activities is significantly lower for SMEs (M = 3.6) than for large organisations (M = 6.3) (t = 6.2, p<0.001).
Organisations with a standalone CSR department were more active across all activities. The number of environmental activities is significantly lower for organisations without a CSR department (M = 5.9) than with (M = 8.0) (t = -4.9, p<0.001). Similarly, the number of social activities is significantly lower for organisations without a CSR department (M = 5.0) than with (M = 7.3) (t = -6.2, p<0.001).
Table 2: Percentage of respondents involved in various CSR activities (n=121)
Activity
Environmentally responsible activities
Percentage
Waste recycling
96.7
Energy reduction
90.9
Carbon footprint reduction
85.1
Materials reduction
79.3
Reduction of the environmental impact of products
and services provided
74.4
Water recycling / reuse
66.9
Accreditation with 'ISO14001'
61.2
Biodiversity protection
38.0
Accreditation with 'BS7750'
32.2
Eco-labelling of products / services
28.9
Other
11.6
Socially responsible activities
Staff Welfare
95.9
Charity Work
82.6
Local Community
75.2
Anti-Corruption
71.1
Investor in People
69.4
Product Responsibility
66.1
Human Rights
54.5
Business in Community
44.6
SA8000
11.6
Other
9.9
All organisations gave reasons to undertake environmentally and socially responsible activities/practices. The most frequently cited reason was 'it's just the right thing to do' (62.8%), i.e. the moral appeal (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Further reasons are given in Table 3. Amongst the 'other' categories, respondents spoke of Government policy and legislative requirements for environmental actions and alignment with company core values and policies for social aspects.
Table 3: Ranking of reasons to undertake CSR activities (and percentage of respondents citing these reasons).
Reasons to undertake environmentally responsible activities
Reasons to undertake socially responsible activities
1. 'It's just the right thing to do' (62.8%)
1. 'It's just the right thing to do' (65.2%)
2. Cost reduction (31.4%)
2. Positive public relations (22.3%)
3. Positive public relations (22.3%)
3. Cost reduction (19.0%)
4. Enabler for tender (22.3%)
4. Employee recruitment (17.3%)
5. Employee recruitment (5.0%)
5. Enabler for tender (13.2%)
Others (10.7%)
Others (8.3%)
Influence of stakeholders on CSR activities
The influence of various stakeholders on the organisation's decision to engage in positive environmental behaviour was asked, with the responses on the following 5-point scale: 1= no influence at all, 2 = minimal influence, 3 = some influence, 4 = a lot of influence, 5 = a great deal of influence (see Table 4). Legislators and regulators have the highest influence (M = 4.02), followed by customers (M = 3.99) and then owners/directors (M = 3.80). Interestingly, the media, lobby groups and unions/work councils were judged to have minimal influence. The differences between large organisations and SMEs are also given in Table 4.
Table 4: Mean influence of stakeholders on the organisation being involved in positive environmental activities
Stakeholder
All
SMEs
Large
Legislation / Regulators
4.02
3.35
4.12
Customers
3.99
3.82
4.10
Owners / Directors
3.80
3.47
3.81
Employees
3.64
3.18
3.73
Shareholders
3.34
3.06
3.36
Community
3.22
2.24
3.42
Financial Backers
3.03
2.24
3.26
Suppliers
2.89
2.65
2.92
Media
2.71
1.71
2.83
Lobby groups
2.67
1.71
2.82
Unions / Works Councils
2.61
1.82
2.67
Similarly, the influence of stakeholders on positive social behaviour was asked using the same 5-point scale i.e. 1= no influence at all, 2 = minimal influence, 3 = some influence, 4 = a lot of influence, 5 = a great deal of influence. Respondents rated 'customers' as the most influential stakeholder (M = 3.83) behind them engaging in positive social behaviour, followed by 'employees', 'owners/directors' and 'legislation/regulators' (see Table 5). In a similar light to environmental activities, organisations felt that unions/works councils, media and lobby groups were the least influential stakeholders.
Table 5: Mean influence of stakeholders on the organisation being involved in positive social behaviour
Stakeholder
All
SMEs
Large
Customers
3.83
3.31
3.90
Employees
3.77
3.25
3.85
Owners / Directors
3.70
3.44
3.68
Legislation / Regulators
3.53
2.75
3.62
Shareholders
3.37
3.31
3.37
Community
3.32
2.25
3.46
Financial Backers
2.97
2.38
3.15
Suppliers
2.82
2.63
2.84
Unions / Works Councils
2.75
1.88
2.82
Media
2.68
1.75
2.76
Lobby groups
2.58
1.69
2.71
Forecast CSR activity over the next five years
When asked about their current level of CSR activity, 29.7% of respondents felt that their organisations were doing 'too little', whilst 70.3% reported doing 'about the right amount'. No organisations stated that they were doing 'too much' CSR activity. More organisations without a CSR department report doing too little CSR (37.8%) compared to organisations with (12.2%) (a statistically significant difference, χ2 = 8.4, p < 0.05). This may suggest that organisations without a CSR department are willing to do more and would benefit from guidance on possible CSR activities to undertake.
The vast majority of organisations expect the level of CSR activities to increase in the next five years, with a more substantial increase for environmental activities than social activities (see Figure 1). Large companies expect a more substantial increase in environmental activities than SMEs but there is little difference between company size for social activities. Organisations with a CSR department expect a more substantial increase in environmental activities than organisations without, but there is little difference for social activities.
However, the organisations who stated doing too little CSR now are expecting a higher increase of activities in the next five years than the organisations doing about the right amount: 60% and 46.3% respectively are expecting a substantial increase in environmental activities, and 48.6% and 29.3% respectively in social activities.
Figure 1: Anticipated change in CSR activities over the next five years (n=120)
Key drivers behind future CSR activities
Figure 1 shows a more positive picture for future CSR resilience than predicted in some reports (e.g. Macalister, 2008, Willman, 2008; Northedge, 2009). The final aspect of this research looked at what the key drivers might be for this predicted growth in CSR activity and a two-stage approach was adopted. Firstly, respondents were presented with a range of organisational changes and asked to identify whether these had been experienced in the past five years; and if so what the impact of each experienced change had been on levels of CSR (-1 = less activity, 0 = no impact, +1 = more activity). Secondly, respondents were asked to identify which of the organisational changes would be significant drivers of future CSR activity. In both cases, respondents were asked to distinguish between environmentally and socially responsible activities.
Table 6 shows that 90% of organisations believe that changes in the level of environmentally responsible activities over the next five years will be driven by changes in external regulatory requirements or legislation. Furthermore, 94 organisations had experienced a change in external regulatory requirements or legislation during the previous five years and the impact on environmentally responsible activities was + 0.89, i.e. significantly more CSR. Compliance with externally driven regulatory requirements or legislation has therefore the greatest impact on environmentally responsible activities (echoing the importance placed on this stakeholder in Table 4). This resonates with Fourgère and Solitander's (2009) call for more corporate accountability, rather than responsibility, through regulatory frameworks. However, Collier and Esteban (2007, p.20) question whether compliance activities "can really generate the kind of employee 'buy-in' necessary for the company to deliver on corporate responsibility". Baden et al. (2009) have found similar concerns with a compliance approach to CSR, and therefore a reliance on regulation and legislation to implement CSR should be treated cautiously.
Table 6: Predicted drivers of environmentally responsible activities in the next five years and the corresponding impact in the past five years (with number of organisations experiencing this change in the past five years)
Type of organisational change
Percentage predicting this change as a driver for environmentally responsible activities in the next five years
Impact on environmentally responsible activities for the organisations who experienced this change in the past five years
External regulatory requirements or legislation
90
+ 0.89 (n = 94)
Organisational culture
49
+ 0.69 (n = 98)
Senior (Board level) leadership
46
+ 0.69 (n = 86)
Sourcing policies (i.e. off shoring)
27
+ 0.54 (n = 45)
Systems for measuring financial performance
19
+ 0.38 (n = 65)
Organisational or financial restructuring
19
+ 0.30 (n = 93)
Ownership through Merger or Acquisition (or other forms of external controls)
12
+ 0.45 (n = 47)
Increased Union(s) / Works Council representation
8
+ 0.31 (n = 18)
From Table 6, a change in organisational culture or senior leadership is recognised as driving a change in environmentally responsible activity by slightly less than half the respondents. However, these have had a very positive impact (+0.69) on environmentally responsible activity for organisations that have experienced these changes in the past five years. It can also be seen that changes to ownership via mergers & acquisitions has had a positive impact on past environmentally responsible activities (+.45, n=47) but is under-recognised as a future driver (12%).
Turning to socially responsible activities, Table 7 shows that 98 organisations have experienced a change in culture over the past five years, which resulted in more socially responsible activity (+0.61). Furthermore, 62% of respondents also see a change in organisational culture as the key driver behind socially responsible activities in the next five years. Changes in external regulatory requirements or legislation and senior leadership were the next cited driver of socially responsible change in organisations. Changes in sourcing policies have had a positive impact on past socially responsible activities (+0.51) but it is under-recognised as a future driver (25%).
Table 7: Predicted drivers of socially responsible activities in the next five years and the corresponding impact in the past five years (with number of organisations experiencing this change in the past five years)
Type of organisational change
Percentage predicting this change as a driver for socially responsible activities in the next five years
Impact on socially responsible activities for the organisations who experienced this change in the past five years
Organisational culture
62
+ 0.61 (n = 98)
External regulatory requirements or legislation
44
+ 0.57 (n = 94)
Senior (Board level) leadership
43
+ 0.57 (n = 86)
Sourcing policies (i.e. off shoring)
25
+ 0.51 (n = 45)
Organisational or financial restructuring
21
+ 0.27 (n = 93)
Systems for measuring financial performance
15
+ 0.35 (n = 65)
Ownership through Merger or Acquisition (or other forms of external controls)
12
+ 0.39 (n = 47)
Increased Union(s) / Works Council representation
11
+ 0.38 (n = 18)
Tables 6 and 7 show that all of the changes experienced by the organisations resulted in more environmentally and socially responsible activities in the past five years. This indicates that the respondents feel the significant drivers behind CSR activities in the next five years will remain consistent with that of the past five years, with external regulatory requirements or legislation, culture and senior leadership changes having the most significance. Despite recognising the future impact of legislation/regulation, only 26.9% of respondents were aware of the imminent ISO26000 CSR standard (n=119), which will arguably be the most significant CSR-related 'framework' in recent times.
Summary and conclusions
This study aimed to survey views across a range of UK organisations in relation to the resilience of their CSR activities. A total of 121 members of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply responded, all of whom were executives, directors and senior managers (all within the UK, split between 101 large-scale organisations and 20 SMEs).
Results show that organisations have been involved with a wide range of CSR activities over the past five years. The most frequently stated environmentally responsible activities were waste recycling, energy reduction and carbon footprint reduction. For socially responsible activities, respondents most frequently cited staff welfare, charity and local community work. When asked to give reasons why they undertook CSR activities, respondents singled out "it's just the right thing to do" (by quite some margin). This would suggest they adopted relational and moral motives for CSR rather than pure instrumentalism (Aguilera et al., 2007).
External legislation/regulation and customers where the most influential stakeholders behind organisations being involved in positive environmental activities. For positive social behaviour, customers and employees where rated as significant stakeholders. It was interesting to note how seemingly little influence the media, lobby groups and Unions/Works Councils were deemed to have in driving CSR activities. This was an unexpected finding and worthy of future research.
No respondents felt their organisations were currently doing too much CSR, 70.3% were content with their current levels and 29.7% felt that their organisations were doing too little CSR. When asked to anticipate the change in activities over the next five years, 90.8% of respondents predicted an increase in environmentally responsible activity and 88.3% predicted an increase in socially responsible actions (within which a significant number were forecasting a substantial increase). External regulations/legislation are predicted to be the most significant drivers behind future environmentally responsible activities and internal changes in organisational culture the most significant driver of socially responsible activity. In a recent worldwide study (Riddleberger and Hittner, 2009, p.1), 60% of business leaders believed that CSR has increased in importance over the past year (34% remained the same and 6% felt less importance), findings which "defy the conventional wisdom that the new economic environment dilutes CSR focus." Our study concurs and our analysis indicates that CSR is a resilient concept.
