The findings of Response, a European research project on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), born within the European Academy of Business in Society, show that it's not sufficient to think in terms of social responsibility, if it is all about communication and superficial interaction with stakeholders. What is relevant instead is whether the perceptions of managers on the social role of their company are in line with those of stakeholders, and whether internal business processes are transformed.
There is no universally shared meaning of corporate social responsibility: the crucial point is the lack of alignment between managers' and stakeholders' perceptions. Why do certain companies have a CSR vision that is more in line with the expectations of stakeholders? What are the environmental, organizational, and personal factors that affect the degree of convergence on what the company should do to meet the expectations surrounding its role in society?
Research shows that stakeholders ask companies to "do good", and thus to take a proactive role in social issues, while most managers look at CSR as respect for rules and the duty to avoid environmental and social damage: they content themselves with "no harm done". Another dimension is the chasm between management and stakeholders when it comes to the breadth of the subject involved. Management looks at CSR as limited to legal and organizational perimeter of their companies, while stakeholders typically tend to enlarge the concept to the plurality of subjects that are part of the social perimeter of the firm (communities, strategic partners, and suppliers most associated with it).
The alignment between managers' interpretations and stakeholders' expectations is systematically associated with superior performance. It is thus important to understand which factors facilitate such an alignment.
In this respect, external factors, such as the state of the industry and the territorial context in which the company operates, are determinant if the perception gap is to be filled, coupled with the fact that managers have to realize that social pressures for socially responsible behavior are mounting. Internal factors, such as the competitive strategy being pursued, are also important.
But CSR is not only a matter of organization. Individuals with their interpretations and values are to be considered jointly with the interventions and characteristics of the firm. To this end, a part of research has been devoted to the impact of pedagogical methodologies in the solution of ethical dilemmas, in order to clarify whether acting in a socially responsible way is determined by the mere knowledge of techniques and tools or if it requires a much deeper introspective approach.
Results support the latter: knowing all about CSR does not mean being able to manage it, if knowledge is not accompanied by an introspection process, in which moral priorities are assessed.
Managers engaged in the path toward CSR should go beyond reactive-defensive behaviors, trying instead to anticipate stakeholders' expectations, and doing more than it's asked from them, so to impinge on larger social issues.
All this requires a deep organizational change inside the company, form the integration of CRS in ordinary business processes, in the company's structure and in its organizational culture. This process needs to be complemented by forms of collaboration with stakeholders, so that they become active in the process of business renewal, valorizing the wealth of knowledge and motivation of each player.
by Francesco Perrini,
international political risk analyst and president of Eurasia Group and
Maurizio Zollo,
Associate Professor of Business Strategy, Bocconi University,
and Academic Director of the Response Project