Corporate+Social+Responsibility+&+Business+Ethics

=Roots of Corporate Social Responsibility=

It is clear that businesses have long been motivated by profit. Strategic development has evolved to focus on the interests of the owners and shareholders, while considerations for the environment and social well being are often overlooked. The negative impact businesses have on the social and natural environment has raised great concern globally.

To understand the origins of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) we must consider the role businesses play as part of modern society, and the interdependence between the two.

//"The role of business in society alters but these changes centre on the economic and social role of the firm, it's owners and those with a stake in the firm// ." Cannon, T (1994) Corporate Responsibility

Businesses and society as a whole provide opportunities for one another and support each other's behaviour with the aim of achieving what could be argued as primary and secondary objectives.

//"Business corporations exist primarily to produce goods and services that society wants and needs. Achieving this objective is their first and foremost responsibility; if they are unsuccessful in this mission, they cannot reasonably be expected to assume others."// Taskforce on Corporate Social Performance (1980) Report on business and society: Strategies for the 1980s

To outline expectations on both sides, society will provide;
 * An environment in which businesses and entrepreneurs can trade
 * A means of exchange - e.g. currencies
 * Social stability that allows investment today for the future i.e. certainty in the markets

However in return society expects;

As legal protection and acting as 'special rights', governments grant organisations //**Limited Liability** & **potential immortality.**//
 * A means through which material needs (products and services) are met
 * The creation of jobs directly and indirectly
 * Wealth generation
 * Investment in the future

Over time the relationship between the organisation and society has developed; the state having introduced laws to protect and conserve a stable business environment and businesses investing in communities, infrastructure and health of a nation's economy. However the new millennium brought about a shift in global perspective on climate change, scarce resources and disparate social degradation that had begun with the Environmental Movement. As society's wants and needs change in line with new points of interest, businesses face new challenges;

//"In competition for scarce resources, firms with poor reputation in wider society will find themselves severely disadvantaged. They will be forced to either produce more profits, pay higher wages or find other ways to counterbalance their image or **change their behaviour.**"// Cannon, T (1994) Corporate Responsibility

Defining Corporate Social Responsibility

While ideas of CSR and business ethics have been talked about and integrated into business practice for a number of years, they remain hard topics to clearly define. This may be because CSR and business ethics theory continues to develop and organisations are free to adopt varying approaches as they see fit. Different interpretations include; Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainable Business Practice, Corporate Citizenship, Business Ethics and even Corporate Accountability. Recent years have seen a shift towards the inclusion of corporate responsibility as opposed to simply social responsibility i.e jobs, local environment and prod uction (Burchell, 2008). Ill ustrated in the following definitions, where one can see the focus vary depending on author and interpretation.


 * "CSR is concerned with treating the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a responsible manner." - Michael Hopkins (2003)
 * "..the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large." - Lord Holme (1999)
 * "It is the core corporate responsibility of Sony Group to the society to pursue its corporate value enhancement through innovation and sound business practice." (Sony Group Code of Conduct, adopted in May 2003)
 * "We aim to make a positive impact on society through the products which we sell, the way in which our products are designed, manufactured and packaged and through the contributions we make to the communities in which we operate." - PZ Cussons, Manufacturers of Original Source shower gel (2014)

By examining the four quotes above it is possible to gain some insight into just how broad efforts under the banner of CSR and business ethics go; some companies/authors focus on key stakeholders, economic development, quality of life, sound business practice, innovation, production methods and means and labour welfare. The Umbrella Concept Rather than one theory or concept, Blowfield and Frynas (2005:503) posit that CSR and business ethics should be viewed as a terms to explain a variety of business practices and perspectives. They argue that the key facets of the umbrella concept of CSR are;

Despite this refinement of CSR theory these tenants continue to allow room for interpretation; the scope of consideration and how any responsibility and impacts may be measured in positive and negative contexts and over long periods of time.
 * Companies are directly responsible for their impact on society and the environment, beyond the obligation of legalities and personal liability
 * Companies are responsible not only for themselves but also for their partners in business i.e. the entire supply chain
 * Companies need to mediate their relationships with the societies in which they operate and with all stakeholders, for reasons both of commercial success and societal value creation

Nature of Corporate Social Responsibility
In order to categorize the nature of various CSR activities a company may look to Archie Carroll's 'Four-part model of corporate social responsibility', created in 1979 and refined in further publications.

The CSR pyramid shows the relative responsibilities of socially responsible organizations, but these responsibilities should not be separated. An organization that actively commits to CSR should embrace each level of the pyramid equally to maximise its ethical potential, and potential financial benefits.

“No metaphor is perfect, and the CSR pyramid is no exception. It is intended to portray that the total CSR of business comprises distinct components that, taken together, constitute the whole.” (Carroll: 1991: 42)

The diagram below illustrates the interrelated responsibilities of the 'corporate citizen' by ascension in order of their explicit and implicit necessity; economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic.

(Carroll, 1991, The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organisational Stakeholders)

In a more recent paper Carroll and Buchholtz (2009) give the definition of "//Corporate social responsibility includes the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic expectations placed on organisations by society at a given point in time.//". These types of expectation are not mutually exclusive, and one criticism of the pyramid of corporate social responsibility is that it does not provide any information with regard to circumstantial conflict between responsibilities. The responsibilities are outlined as follows (Crane and Matten, 2010);


 * Economic Responsibilities (//Partially explained above//). These include the need to be profitable and able to return investment to shareholders, the need by employees for safe jobs and adequate pay and the need by customers/society to provide goods and services at a reasonable price

Economic responsibilities act as the basis for all other responsibilities and are vital for the existence of the business, this is why - given the financial crisis that occurred in 2008/9 - many governments have chosen to 'bail out' large organisations and banks. Many of the tangible and intangible deliverables provided by these business were needed for society to function, and so the businesses' survival was imperative.


 * Legal Responsibilities.These include privacy laws, on-line business laws, intellectual property laws, employment and labour laws, finance laws and environmental regulations.

These responsibilities represent the foundation of moral standards of society, as laws are intended to be the codification of morals of the people. To abide by laws is to have achieved the most basic of ethical behaviours as a corporate citizen by modern society's standards.


 * Ethical Responsibilities. These may include environmental issues, to treat employees well as assets of the company, social causes.

They are the obligations to do what is deemed right, fair and just by stakeholders of a business, assuming that economic and legal responsibilities have been met.


 * Philanthropic Responsibilities. Philanthropic responsibilities may include sponsorship of sporting or art events, support for local schools and healthcare organisations, charitable donations.

These responsibilities are varied in their application, but all borne out of an intention to better the human experience. In the Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility they are placed at the top, and are thus not required nor expected by society, they are desired and so are entirely at the discretion of the organisation.

Friedman (1970) argues that the only purpose of an organisation is to maximise profits for its shareholders, and it only has to act within basic social rules established by legal restrictions. Society and public opinion are always changing, as have the legal limitations on businesses, meaning that Friedman’s argument is considered fairly irrelevant in the current business world.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics
The ethical responsibilities of organizations relate to the principals of fairness and justice, and build upon established legal responsibilities that businesses must adhere to. Due to the growing opinion that businesses should take responsibility for the issues they actively contribute to, ethics has become an extremely viable way that organizations can begin to make a difference.

“Ethical responsibilities embody those standards, norms, or expectations that reflect a concern for what consumers, employees, shareholders, and the community regard as fair, just or in keeping with the respect or protection of stakeholders’ moral rights” (Carroll: 1991: 41).

The ever changing values of society are the main driers for change within business ethics, as the needs of primary stakeholders must be met to maintain a successful and appealing business. When a business is sympathetic to the needs of society, society becomes more sympathetic towards the business.

Carroll (1991) states that to maintain corporate integrity, a business should never sacrifice its ethical commitments and practices, as this will dissolve any faith society has in the organization. This can be influenced by the personal perspectives and values of managers within the organization; managers can influence trends within businesses, and if management acts unethically, the trend of unethical behaviour will persist.

There are three main perspectives when considering business ethics, these are (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2011);
 * //Conventional Approach// – Society’s view of business ethics, this stance is predominated by conventional common sense


 * //Principles Approach// – Using ethical principles or guidelines to validate behaviour, actions or policy


 * //Ethical Tests Approach// – The use of tests, or short situation questions to determine behaviour, actions or policy

Organisations may implement a number of practices in order to effectively manage internal and external business ethics, some of which include; value statements, codes of ethics, reporting channels, ethics managers, ethics consultants, education and training, stakeholder consultation and risk management.

CSR and Philanthropy
The philanthropic endeavours of an organization build upon its commitments to ethical practices, and involve active engagement with community projects or acts, promoting goodwill within the community. By investing in social capital, businesses are able to establish and strengthen social relationships, often leading to improving brand reputation and awareness (Morsing & Perrini: 2009).

Philanthropic commitments are not considered essential to an organization in the same sense that ethical and legal responsibilities should be; it is however welcomed within communities. A business is not considered unethical if it does not actively donate to the community, as philanthropy is up to managers to commit resources. Carroll (1991) states that businesses that solely contribute via altruism cannot be considered ethical; by overlooking ethical principals, the integrity of these organizations can be considered questionable.

Globalisation and Corporate Social Responsibility
The implications of corporate social responsibility differ not only from business to business and sector to sector but also from nation to nation. In order to understand the role of CSR in different areas, it is necessary to consider regional and national contexts. The sections illustrated below are not definitive and are intended as a guide – this is because aside from other factors, many 'BRIC Economies' have very high economic growth adding to their rate of transition in the global marketplace.

Corporate Social Responsibility in Developed Countries
The majority of CSR literature, terminology and practices originated in the United States, however over the last few decades this body of theory has been developed and build upon by a variety of authors from around the globe. The principle reason for its conception was due to the characteristics of the US business system (Matten and Moon, 2008), which relies on relatively low levels of intervention in markets by the state; unregulated labour and capital markets low state provision of welfare and an emphasis on the accountability and liberties of the individual. It follows that focus on these issues has been at the centre of US development of CSR, and is reflected in the levels of corporate community contributions which are ten times larger than that of British companies (Brammer and Pavelin, 2005). Europe, Australasia and the Far East have traditionally been disposed to addressing these issues through state policy and collective bargaining: “the corporate responsibility for social issues has been the object of codified and mandatory regulation” (Crane, Matten and Spence, 2008). Therefore CSR implementation has largely come about through companies’ operations outside their national borders – where there may be poor governance, human and environmental rights protection and low state provision of welfare - with Multinational Corporations (MNCs) often being progressive forces of CSR. In recent years businesses in the UK have increasingly been proactive with CSR policy due to the number of factors; one of which being the liberalisation of labour and capital markets and the privatisation of public services. These changes in the perspective and behaviour of the state are shown in Prime Minister David Cameron’s commitment to a ‘Big Society’ in early 2010 (UKGov, 2014). Other factors include pressure put on companies by Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) which may be driven by social welfare and ‘socially responsible investment’ criteria adopted by various global investors.

Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries
Arguably the prospects for organisations to do good through CSR implementation are greatest in developing countries. What has been seen in the past are however opportunities to exploit cheap labour and capital due to poor environmental and human right protection, poor provision of healthcare and education and corruption. An unlikely hero in the fight for equality and development came in the form of media coverage, whose attention shone a spotlight on – as one example - Nike’s poor labour policies in the 1990s. As a consequence of pressure from NGOs and a deterioration of Nike’s reputation in the west, this MNC among many others started to adopt the standards and practices of their country of origin when operating abroad. A growing number of domestic companies operating in developing companies have also opted into CSR implementation, in much the same way that early US firms did. These companies have directed their efforts to the installation of much needed infrastructure, healthcare and education schemes. Despite these triumphs, Frynas (2005) demonstrates how evidence that profit-maximizing firms – such as ones seen in the oil industry – contribute positively to the developing world has “limited potential”. It may be that efforts undertaken by these MNCs (e.g. Shell in Nigeria) suffer as incomplete packages mirroring the short-termism employed by the business model of such companies. Foreign investment from MNCs particularly in regard to finite resource extraction may only act as a precedent to a phenomenon known as the ‘Resource Curse’.

Corporate Social Responsibility in Transitional Economies
Over the last half century many former members of the communist bloc have moved from heavily regulated economies to that of market capitalism and are doing so in a range of approaches. The two main examples of this transition are Russia and China. Russia has now emerged from a communist era in which corruption was commonplace; the aftermath of this corruption may be interpreted as a lack of trust between individuals, businesses and the state. Research by Kuznetsov //et al// (2009 cited in Crane, Matten and Spence, 2013) finds that Russian managers do not view CSR as a relevant topic for business or for stakeholders, and that furthermore these managers are more likely to perceive CSR as only including the base levels in Carroll’s ‘Four-part pyramid of corporate social responsibility’ – that of legal and economic compliance. China’s approach to CSR has been progressive, and delivered in the form of legal regulations coherent in a country with prominent state influence. Reasons for the embrace of CSR may be China’s increasingly important role on the ‘world stage’ and a desire to attain a responsible national image.

Kellie McElhaney and CSR 3.0
media type="custom" key="25421948"

In the above talk Kellie McElhaney, Professor and Faculty director at the Centre for Responsible Business University College Berkeley discusses her stance on CSR and its development. She highlights that when organisations do not behave in an ethically responsible manner, that responsibility is passed on to the consumer e.g. Abercrombie & Fitch’s ‘create the sexy come hither look’ push up bikini top marketed to 7-12 year old girls. Despite this apparent dislocation of ethical principles consumers still demand the product, so McElhaney goes on to posit that businesses now should look as to how they can make the products they sell smarter.

Outlined below are McElhaney’s defined characteristics of stages of CSR;
 * //CSR 1.0// - Opacity/lack of transparency


 * //CSR 2.0// – Subtle changes in information, knowledge of supply chain mechanisms and standards, influence of brand recognition on sales


 * //CSR 2.5// (current position) – Creating smarter products, small changes/big impact, working //with// big manufacturers e.g. Walmart


 * //CSR 3.0 –// CSR as a business strategy linked to creating value and protecting value for both society and the business, using the power of big business

Stakeholder Theory – An alternative approach
“Whether they like it or not they are created by society and derive their legitimacy from the societies in which they operate” (Buono & Nichols: 1990: 17).

Stakeholders are described as a group or person that is affected by the performance of a business, and can be classified into primary and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are considered essential for the day to day operation of a business and include consumers, shareholders, employees and suppliers, as well as many more.

Commitments must be made to satisfy primary stakeholders to keep the business operational. Secondary stakeholders are considered unessential for the survival of a business.

Developed by Edward Freeman (1984) in the 1980s, stakeholder theory starts by looking at all constituents who may have a stake in the business, or to which the businesses is in some way responsible. This contrasts with the approach of CSR, where focus is placed on the role of the firm and its responsibilities. There are many different definitions as to who constitutes and stakeholder and when. Evan and Freeman (1993, cited in Crane and Matten, 2010) propose the application of two principles; principle of corporate rights and principle of corporate effect.


 * //Principle of Corporate Rights –// corporation have the obligation not to violate the rights of others


 * //Principle of Corporate Effect -// corporations are responsible for the effects of their actions on others

Taking these principles into account, Crane and Matten (2010) go on to define a stakeholder as;

//"A stakeholder of a corporation is an individual or a group which either: is harmed by, or benefits from, the corporation; **or** whose rights can be violated, or have to be respected, by the corporation"//

In the stakeholder view of a firm, the organisation has obligations to a series of groups which may include; shareholders, suppliers, customers, society, government and employees. Stakeholder Theory rests of the notion that the firm is at the centre of a series of interconnected groups which influence each other. This aspect of the theory can be taken further to include the shareholders of a particular group of the firm’s shareholders e.g. Employees or suppliers of a firm’s direct supplier of a material.

This diagram by Donaldson & Preston (1995) clearly illustrates the many relationships of the stakeholder theory of the firm.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Figure 2: Contrasting Models of the Corporation: The Stakeholder Model <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px;">Source: Donaldson & Preston (1995)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Reasons for implementing CSR
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gallagher (2005) states that the purpose of CSR is to enable an organization to act in ethical ways. This is supported by the fact that consumers prefer ethical companies, and by promoting ethical practices through cause-related marketing (CRM) an organization can reap the rewards of CSR.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">One of the main motivators for implementing CSR is the potential return in capital that it may generate. By appealing to customers through CRM businesses are able to charge a premium for products and services (Mohr, L. Webb, D. et al: 2001)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Barriers to implementing CSR
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The increase in awareness and implementation of CSR has met much resistance. Murphy (2005) described CSR as “little more that cosmetic treatment” and many agree, seeing CSR as a fad that will go out of fashion. Carroll and Shabana (2010) oppose this view, as do many other academics, showing that implementing CSR can bring many benefits to a business’ position and performance.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Karnani (2010) states that if a corporation is forced into a position where ethical practices and profitability are conflicting, an organization will always choose to abandon ethical practices. In most cases, investing in solutions to social and environmental issues will always impact profits. A simple example wold be if an organization begins supporting and financing employees through training and qualifications. The employees would be more motivated and have a stronger loyalty to the organization, however the necessary diversion of capital would hinder profitability.

Summary
media type="custom" key="25422292"

To summarise briefly topics covered by this wiki page;
 * CSR stems from interdependence between business and society, and the needs and wants of both parties. Businesses are granted Limited liability and potential immortality in order to assume a long-termism perspective
 * As there are multiple approaches to CSR & Business ethics there are also multiple definitions, however these definitions usually imply different focuses . Therefore it may be more beneficial to employ principles with which a definition can be drawn
 * The nature of CSR varies depending on the scope and effort of the approach, Carroll’s ‘Four-part pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility’ illustrates how a business is able to categorise CSR as either; Economic, Legal, Ethical or Philanthropic
 * CSR may be employed to differing extents around the globe. Businesses may consider their individual commitment to CSR, the level of infrastructure and environmental and human rights protection as well as levels of state intervention. Businesses must also examine the consequences of their actions and policies abroad carefully.
 * Businesses that lack CSR may be passing on responsibilities to consumers and thus society
 * Alternative approaches to CSR exist and there is no one definitive concept e.g. Stakeholder Theory of the firm

References Cont.
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Buono, A. Nichols, L. (1990) Stockholder and stakeholder interpretations of business’ social role. Business Ethics. pp. 170-175 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Carroll, A. (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons. Vol. 34. No. 4. pp. 39-48 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Carroll, A. Shabana, K. (2010) The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. pp. 85 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Friedman, M. (1970) The Social Responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gallagher, S. (2005) A strategic response to Friedman’s critique of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Strategy. Vol. 26. pp. 55-60 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Mohr, L. Webb, D. Harris, K. (2001) Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behaviour. Journal of Consumer Affairs. Vol. 35. Issue 1. pp. 45-73. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Morsing, M. Perrini, F. (2008) CSR in SMEs: do SMEs Matter for the CSR agenda. Business Ethics: A European Review. Vol. 18. No. 1. p.1-6

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px;">Murphy, R. (2005) The Good Company. The Economist

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Additions to Wiki contents
The wiki has given a good overview of the CSR concept and its relation with other countries of the world. The following will look into its context with sustainability in more detail.

1. Business as a positive force
Some claim that businesses have the outstanding task of launching a new wave of sustainable and fair global growth. As an example, the concept of ‘shared values’ has been perceived to be a means of resetting the frontiers of capitalism: it should facilitate the focus on social and environmental impacts, redefine productivity and implement local communities more into a business’ activities. By applying these values within business, the underlying key driver of profit growth might still be present, though commercial actions with a social purpose shift it to a ‘higher’ (i.e. better) form of profit. The concept has already been adopted by many companies, such as Nestle (on sourcing coffee) and Coca-Cola (on water management). Therefore it does not only redistribute commercial wealth, but also has the ability to tackle social and environmental issues – sometimes with more success than governments or civil organisations (Blowfield, 2013: 60-61).

However, voluntary CSR is also being criticised: how important the aims are to a company might alter with changes in leadership. Further, sometimes objectives have been found to lack seriousness in times of economic downturn. This raises the question about the honesty of a company’s intentions. Lastly, all too often good social or environmental performance leads too reducing costs – hence it would be foolish of any company to turn this opportunity down; yet if the outset costs are greater and/or there are no legal incentives, it is much more difficult to get companies involved (Blowfield, 2013: 61-62)

2. CSR, reporting and the environment
Evaluating how a business performs under compelling pressures such as climate change or water shortage is sensible when assessing future business plans. As a result, companies are more and more frequently asked to disclose information e.g. about their carbon emissions or water footprint, with an increasing number of respondents, too. If refusing to publish such data, or simply not being concerned with environmental issues, companies jeopardise long-term shareholder value and also risk to deteriorate their reputation by society as a whole (Smith, 2011: 104).

By 2008, 79% of the 250 largest global organisations produced CSR reports, and the proportion of those following sustainable business strategies had increased from 50% to 62%. Moreover, 61% of the surveyed participants found that the implementation of sustainable practices has benefited them either through cost reductions or increased profitability (KPMG, 2008, cited Smith, 2011: 105). Another survey has found that mostly the sectors of automotive, banking and energy perceive sustainability as a highly important issue (UN Global Compact, 2010, cited Smith, 2011: 105).

As stakeholders are increasingly looking for more meaningful company data – in particular within the areas of environmental and social impacts – CSR reports are an important communication tool to a company. The reporting model of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has been found to be widely used, especially amongst larger organisations (Smith, 2011: 105).

In a fast-changing business world which faces decline of natural resources and contrastingly rise of populations, new legislation and regulations are constantly emerging. Companies which commit to a CSR policy are said to be better prepared for such challenges. For instance, if already monitoring carbon emissions and setting targets to reduce them, a business will be better prepared one carbon pricing becomes a matter of course (Smith, 2011: 106). Yet there are a couple of more advantages. Firstly, CSR reporting helps to improve market reputation by building trustworthiness. Particularly in times of economic downturns this is a vital feature – evidence is given that 77% of American consumers turned away from a distrusted company after the 2008 crisis (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2009, cited Smith, 2011: 106). Secondly, disclosing information about safety practices, non-discrimination policy, worker benefits and so on will make a company appear as a good employer: it helps to attract the top candidates in its industry and is especially of concern to young undergraduates seeking employment. Investors are encouraged by increased savings resulting from corporate sustainability and forward-thinking, too. Lastly, the trend of CSR reporting continues within supply chains. Therefore many companies will be required by their corporate customers to reveal sustainability performance and meet standards (Smith, 2011: 106-107).

3. CSR and the Triple Bottom Line
The Triple Bottom Line approach (3BL)– i.e. social, environmental and economic sustainability – supports the view that long-term success for a corporation requires to focus on all three of its elements, rather than a single, short-term emphasis. These elements are also strongly connected and have influence on each other. Therefore it is essential to involve everyone in the implementation, which requires partnerships and cooperation amongst industry and governments as well as non-governmental bodies (Elkington, 1998, cited Amini and Bienstock, 2013: 2).

3BL has been criticised for being too complex to implement; it is believed that focussing on social and environmental aspects leads to the suffering of economic sustainability (Gray, 2006, Carter and Rogers, 2007, Nidumolu //et al.//, 2009, cited Amini and Bienstock, 2013: 2). According to others, the lack of success of some organisations is a result of failing to link business strategy thoroughly to sustainability initiatives: building ‘shared values’ is key in order to make sustainability efforts work out (Porter and Kramer, 2006, cited Amini and Bienstock, 2013: 2). Therefore the effective implementation of a corporate CSR policy throughout an entire company is essential, too.