RESPONSE - Insead

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Recommendations Recommendations for business 11 Recommendations This final chapter of the report intends to build on the findings summarised above, as well as on the vast amount of direct observations accumulated during the course of three years of work with the 21 participant companies. The objective, of course, is to point to some implications and consequent recommendations for action aimed at helping the key stakeholders for which RESPONSE was designed and executed, develop their own position and plan their future course of action on this complex set of issues. 11.1 Recommendations for business For corporate leaders and business managers (with P&L responsibility): 1. Reframing CSR. This study has surfaced a significant amount of misalignment between managers and stakeholders about how the concept of CSR, and its related issues, are framed in people’s mind. To bridge this gap, and consequently improve the social performance of their company, corporate leaders and business managers need to reframe the problem in a significant way and along many dimensions: a. From “Do No Harm” to “Do Good”. Stop considering (implicitly or explicitly) CSR simply as an issue of refraining from causing harm to society, and start framing it more clearly and forcefully as a challenge to find the most appropriate ways and means to help society develop to the fullest possible extent, and in the best possible way b. From a Firmcentric to a Worldcentric view of the role of their organisation. Managers who intend to enhance the degree of alignment with the way their stakeholders think about the problem need to perceive their organisation as a truly global citizen. This requires moving beyond the narrow focus on the legal, reputational or ethical logics that define its boundaries, and accept the rights and duties connected to the impact it has on the environments in which it operates. c. Broaden up. Even within their current “View”, there is a lot they can do to expand the implicit framing of the problem. For example, if they maintain a stakeholdercentric view of CSR, then at the very least they might consider expanding the scope of “responsibility” to include all the audiences for which their company matters, that is, on which their company has a significant impact. d. Finally, but fundamentally, they might consider reframing their thinking about CSR from “what they can do to us” to ”what we can do to them”. For example, the prioritisation of the company’s stakeholders need not be made on the basis of how salient they are for the company’s wellbeing (Mitchell, Agle and Wood, 1997), but on how salient your company is for their wellbeing. It is subtle but fundamental. 2. Reframing “Why CSR”. One of the key findings of this study is that the way companies justify their commitment to CSR influences the degree of cognitive alignment with their counterparts, as well as the perception of social performance formed by stakeholders and civil society in general. In particular, our findings suggest that expressing the commitment to CSR through a “business case” based on the value that CSR brings to your company’s innovation and change processes is particularly conducive of higher cognitive alignment with stakeholders’ way to thing about the issue. Innovation could thus represent the compromise solution, or even the “winwin” upon which both business managers and stakeholders can find common ground and a solid basis for cooperation. 3. Bridging the “gap”. What can be done, then, to bridge the “gap” and enhance the cognitive alignment between the company and its societal counterparts? This study points to the role of two factors that are particularly important and potentially “actionable” for any corporate leader who intends to invest in improving the alignment with its societal counterpart, and thus the company’s social performance: RESPONSE: understanding and responding to societal demands on corporate responsibility 82
Recommendations Recommendations for business a. Business Strategy. The link between the competitive strategy adopted by the corporation and the degree of cognitive alignment was one of the most interesting, and somewhat unexpected, results of this study. Taken its implications further, this result suggests that corporate leaders of companies competing on cost efficiency, and on large volumes with lower margins, might consider changing the way the it competes towards a competitive posture that prioritises differentiation, innovation and customisation of its products/services, and consequently aiming towards higher margins. Of course, this is easier said than done, and there are many other factors that would need to be considered before a strategic shift of this sort could be designed and implemented. The results of our analyses, however, speak clearly about the advantage that this strategic choice would bring in terms of reducing the discrepancies and thus enhancing the social cohesion among stakeholders, with positive expected implications for both economic and social performance. This recommendation is further informed by the findings that the superior alignment of companies in highly dynamic, innovation and customisationdriven sectors, visàvis more stable and efficiencydriven ones. b. Integration of CSR principles in Business Processes. This factor has emerged in our analysis as one of the strongest predictors of social performance. The implication for corporate leaders is clearly pointing to the need to invest in deep internal change processes aimed at the adaptation of operating and strategic processes towards the integration of social responsibility principles. This means, in concrete terms, that all the fundamental processes that make the organisation “work”, from the way resources are allocated to the way people are hired and motivated, from the procurement of resources to the marketing and sales of products; each functional activity should be adapted to fully embed the consideration of its potential social impact. This is a hugely tall order, of course, particularly considering the peripheral role played by “CSR experts” in most of the large business corporations today. The power and the responsibility to make this happen rests primarily on the corporate leaders’ and senior executives’ shoulders, those with P&L responsibility, which typically comes with the control of adequate resources and the endowment of sufficient internal power to affect the evolution of business activities. We recommend this be the real litmus test to assess progress in your company’s efforts to become an effective and recognised corporate citizen. For managers responsible for CSR related activities: 1. Reframe the problem: from external engagement to internal change. Our data and observations show that the key factor explaining the difference between “good” and “great” social performance is not the quality of the company’s stakeholder engagement, but the degree to which CSR is integrated within business operations and, even more importantly, the strategic decisionmaking process. In fact, in some cases, we have observed subtle disadvantages in overinvesting in external communication processes, due to the consequent draining of attention and resources from the necessity to drive internal change processes. We thus recommend CSR managers refocus their attention and their time/resource commitment away from handling external communication processes (beyond a minimum requirement, of course) and focus on the complexities of championing internal change initiatives aimed at mainstreaming CSR in all relevant business and strategic processes. 2. Redefine Your Role. In some of the companies we have studied the “CSR function” has been undergoing rapid change in both its position within the organisational structure and in the nature of its mandate. In general, the changes have been towards an increasingly central role in the strategic debate within the firm, and a higher level of integration with business functions. The movement from the organisational “periphery” towards the centre is welcome, of course, but the road ahead seems to be still long and uphill, particularly in light of the changing nature of the “challenge” (see above #1). If CSR specialists are to assume a role RESPONSE: understanding and responding to societal demands on corporate responsibility 83
Page 1 and 2:
SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Executive summary 6 1 Intr
Page 5 and 6:
Tables Table 1. Typology of factors
Page 7 and 8:
Executive summary Recommendations c
Page 9 and 10:
Executive summary Recommendations l
Page 11 and 12:
Executive summary Recommendations r
Page 13 and 14:
Introduction Aims of this study “
Page 15 and 16:
PART I: CSR AND COGNITIVE ALIGNMENT
Page 17 and 18:
A model of cognitive alignment and
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Methodology Scope 3 Methodology 3.1
Page 27 and 28:
Methodology Company case studies Th
Page 29 and 30:
Methodology Case comparison Analysi
Page 31 and 32: Methodology CrossPair Comparison
Page 33 and 34: Findings: Managers’ understanding
Page 45 and 46: Findings: External factors and cogn
Page 51 and 52: Findings: Internal factors and cogn
Page 59 and 60: A Model of Social Consciousness and
Page 65 and 66: Methodology Experiment Settings 8.3
Page 67 and 68: Methodology Experiment Protocols ev
Page 69 and 70: Findings: Developing Social Conscio
Page 77 and 78: Conclusions from study findings Ass
Page 79 and 80: Conclusions from study findings Dev
Page 81: Conclusions from study findings Dev
Page 85 and 86: Recommendations Recommendations for
Page 105 and 106: Recommendations: Recommendations fo
Page 107 and 108: Recommendations: Recommendations fo
show all

RESPONSE - Insead

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?