Towards a Theory and Model of Corporate Social Responsibility and Implications for Management and Leadership Practices
The deconstructive and complexity-inspired reading given of CSR in Chap. 5 is developed into a theory and model of CSR in this chapter. To this end, a critical investigation of the three components of CSR is presented, namely corporate identity, the natu
- PDF / 356,181 Bytes
- 33 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 17 Downloads / 164 Views
Towards a Theory and Model of Corporate Social Responsibility and Implications for Management and Leadership Practices
Abstract The deconstructive and complexity-inspired reading given of CSR in Chap. 5 is developed into a theory and model of CSR in this chapter. To this end, a critical investigation of the three components of CSR is presented, namely corporate identity, the nature of the relations between corporations and society (including stakeholders), and the nature of corporate responsibility. The model of CSR that is derived from this investigation depicts the different domains of CSR (namely, the environmental, social, legal, and economic domains) as embedded in one another, and differentially related to one another. It is argued that these domains are interlinked in complex ways with the corporation, which makes it impossible to conclusively define corporate responsibilities. These complexities also frustrate our attempts at managing our CSR obligations, as our current analytic tools are inadequate in dealing with these complexities. A number of management tools that can help in this regard are therefore also introduced, as is a discussion on the leadership approach and responsibilities that support the theory and model of CSR developed here.
Introduction Gerald Midgley (2003: 93) argues that complexity thinking (of which deconstruction can serve as an example) leads to ‘new and different questions about what forms of intervention we should pursue’. The analysis and defense of a complex, deconstructive notion of CSR undertaken in the previous chapter certainly poses many questions for our understanding of CSR. Yet, in order for these ideas to gain traction, it is important to try and flesh out the implications that this analysis holds for a theory and a model of CSR.
M. Woermann, On the (Im)Possibility of Business Ethics, Issues in Business Ethics 37, 125 DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5131-6_6, # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
126
6 Towards a Theory and Model of Corporate Social Responsibility. . .
Perhaps a first skeptical question that comes to mind concerns the institutionalisation of these insights, namely: can we translate these insights into a substantive theory capable of informing and guiding our practices? In considering this question, let us first turn to Morin’s (2008: 97) definition of complex thinking: [C]omplex thinking is not omniscient thinking. It is, on the contrary, a thinking which knows that it is always local, situated in a given time and place. Neither is it a complete thinking, for it knows in advance that there is always uncertainty.
Despite the uncertainties and contingencies introduced by any serious engagement with complexity, both Morin and Derrida are – as we have seen – of the opinion that the complexities that characterise our lives cannot excuse us from taking action. In Derrida’s terms, we must assume a position, and this position must – moreover – be transgressive. We must explore beyond our current epistemologies and theories, and recognise that ‘complex
Data Loading...
