corporate social responsibility (CSR)

The idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been gaining importance and significance for many years. It continues to be the focus of discussion, theory development, and study. CSR has evolved and matured in academic and practitioner communities around the world as a result of these intense discussions on what it encompasses and entails. People now saw the importance of businesses defining their roles in society and incorporating moral and social norms into their operations, and the CSR had transformed from an ideology to a reality (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). This essay aims to define the term "CSR." In addition, it explores through the CSR and the corporate social irresponsibility (CSI), and offers insights on whether organizations should ignore their roles to some stakeholders in order to boost their net incomes.
Description of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Despite its proliferation, Popa and Salanță (2014) noted that there is no agreed definition of CSR. The CSR remains a complex concept, making it lack a common definition. It is an umbrella term with several concepts linked to it, and has evolved over time as its value in organizations change. Since 1930s, the CSR has evolved to become a powerful management tool for use in gaining a competitive edge. Lindgreen and Swaen (2010) argued that the modern issues may have defined the evolution of the CSR, and these developments could have been informed by several theories such as the resource-based theory, stewardship theory, stakeholders' theory, theory of the firm, agency theory, and the institutional theory. CSR covers many areas including the corporate sustainability, corporate citizenship, business ethics and stakeholder theory. Other concepts used to describe the CSR are the corporate social performance, corporate environment and social responsibility, sustainable development, philanthropy, and the triple bottom line (Popa & Salanță, 2014).
The CSR is all about doing good where the business maximizes the shareholders' wealth while abiding by the basic societal rules. Therefore, the CSR can be seen as the efforts by organizations to act in a socially responsible manner in the course of their business to strike a balance between the shareholders' expectations, social, economic and environmental imperatives.
Corporate Social Responsibility vs. Corporate Social Irresponsibility
As companies try to pursue their CSR goals, the managers may make decisions that are against the idea of doing good. In such a case, the organizations will fail to meet the society's expectations, even if it is responding to them. Among the CSI activities that managers engage in include environmental degradation, bribery, corruption, and social injustice leading to corporate undesirability. The companies are also engaged in CSI by concentrating on punishing the wrongs, yet they do not reward the good behavior. Popa and Salanță (2014) reported that some scholars argue that managers engage in the CSR activities in their efforts to conceal the controversial CSI operations by diverting the stakeholders' attention. Other ways through which the CSI activities manifest themselves include unfair treatment of employees, discrimination in the workplace, human rights violation, offering incomplete or wrong product information to clients, cheating business partners, price-fixing strategies, and damaging the environment among others.
In the contemporary corporate arena, companies that want to continue in business must be ready to take responsibility and be accountable for their activities. Organizations engage in business responsibility activities for the purpose of the society for the wrongs they have committed as a way of compensating them. In the course of the managerial practice, bad behaviors have been recorded leading to an increased focus on the CSR activities as a compensation for the harm caused (Popa & Salanță, 2014). Indeed the authors noted that in 1950 and 1960s, the companies engaged in CSR strategies as a reaction or remedy to their unethical behaviors. For instance, the Atlantic Richfield and the entire oil industry initially engaged in CSR activities owing to the great threat they were facing from the adverse effects caused by their oil business. This case shows that the CSR and CSI practices are intricate because the company and the entire industry did not proactively engaged in the CSR activities; rather, they reacted to the crises.
The CSR programs were not informed by broad and deep ethical idealism. The earlier companies realized that the public opinion was negative as their favorable perceptions were decreasing. To save their businesses, they reacted through CSR practices as a means of compensating the public for wrongdoing. They realized that their operations were under threat and as said by Lundin Petroleum from Sweden, the CSR was its social license to operate, thereby avoiding the long-term paralysis (Popa & Salanță, 2014).
In the modern global market, organizations must dedicate themselves to reduce and eradicate all CSI cases if they want to operate smoothly. They should ensure that all possible areas through which the company can suffer from voluntary or involuntary acts are sealed. In this case, they will be able to avoid the adversaries linked to CSI such as those faced by the British Petroleum after the 2010 oil spill. The firm suffered huge losses and fines, and still costs the company large sums of money. There is also the case of Tommy Hilfiger, an apparel company, which was wrongly linked to child labor in one of its shops. Owing to the involvement of activists, its revenues dropped, making it suffer financial losses as it was regarded unethical company.
The companies must also involve all stakeholders to ensure that their expectations are met. They should adopt a stakeholder-oriented approach to achieve successful CSR implementation. As noted by Lindgreen and Swaen (2010) formal or informal engagements and dialogues can be held for a common strategic course. These initiatives will largely help the organization avoid wrong acts by doing the good things. If left on their own, companies may wrongly perceive the CSR activities. For instance, the Romanian SMEs view the CSR practices as the engagement in voluntary programs, making small donations and philanthropic activities (Popa & Salanță, 2014).
In addition, the business responsibility for the society is viewed as an organizational accountability and means to achieving a competitive advantage over the rivals (Popa & Salanță, 2014). As added by Lindgreen and Swaen (2010) the firm reduces costs and risks, builds competitive advantage, strengthens legitimacy, and creates a win-win situation through the synergistic creation of value.
Conclusion
The companies that want to continue in operations have to invest in CSR programs; though in the short-term, it could be viewed as incurring unnecessary costs. In the course of their activities, organizations cause undesirable effects to the society. They must, therefore, remain accountable and taking all the necessary steps to strengthen their legitimacy and improve the public perception. This paper advices these organizations to undertake strategic moves while investing in the CSR activities, implementing the programs, measuring its value, and communicating the same to the various stakeholders. They should follow Primark, which invests handsomely to its CSR programs through a strategic approach by carefully picking highly ethical providers. Also, to avoid the unethical managerial behaviors, companies should develop a Code of Ethics, and constantly remind each employee of his/her obligations in handling stakeholders.

References
Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1-8.
Popa, M., & Salanță, I. (2014). Corporate social responsibility versus corporate social irresponsibility. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 9 (2), 137-146.