29.01.2013 Views

University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

689<br />

RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP OR A PROFIT-<br />

MAXIMISING STRATEGY? THE REALITY BEHIND<br />

CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL SELF-REGULATION<br />

Abstract<br />

Robert Kudłak, Ph.D.<br />

Institute <strong>of</strong> Socio-Economic Geography and Spatial Management,<br />

Adam Mickiewicz <strong>University</strong>,<br />

27 Dzięgielowa St.<br />

61-680 Poznań, Poland<br />

The concept <strong>of</strong> corporate social responsibility (CSR) is being widely analysed and discussed by<br />

scholars and managers. However, it remains unclear whether CSR-labelled actions are actually<br />

motivated by corporate altruism and responsibility or are simply another embodiment <strong>of</strong> a pr<strong>of</strong>itmaximization<br />

strategy. This paper aims at filling this gap by analysing the motivations behind the<br />

environmental management systems: the most popular form <strong>of</strong> corporate environmental selfregulation.<br />

The results <strong>of</strong> a survey conducted among 281 enterprises suggest that what is referred<br />

to as CSR is rather corporate social performance (CSP) driven by self-interest. In the majority <strong>of</strong><br />

cases, corporations’ attempts to improve their environmental performance have been motivated<br />

by their willingness to improve their image, efforts to build positive relationships with various<br />

groups <strong>of</strong> stakeholders as well as expected economic benefits or a risk-minimizing strategy.<br />

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Performance, Environmental<br />

self-regulation.<br />

Introduction<br />

The role <strong>of</strong> companies in the economy and society has been regarded and discussed<br />

by scholars and managers for several decades. Opinions on social performance <strong>of</strong><br />

enterprises have changed dramatically over time. A case in point is Milton<br />

Friedman’s view (1970) that “the social responsibility <strong>of</strong> business is to increase its<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>its”. This approach is largely criticized now. It is pinpointed that businesses<br />

should contribute to the widely defined social welfare by undertaking voluntary<br />

activities exceeding the companies’ legal responsibilities. These activities have been<br />

the focal point <strong>of</strong> the concept <strong>of</strong> corporate social responsibility.<br />

There has been no consensus on how CSR should be defined. According to a<br />

definition suggested by the Commission <strong>of</strong> the European Communities (2001), CSR<br />

is a “concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in<br />

their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a<br />

voluntary basis.” On the other hand, the World Business Council for Sustainable<br />

Development has defined CSR as “(…) the continuing commitment by business to<br />

behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the<br />

quality <strong>of</strong> life <strong>of</strong> the workforce and their families as well as the local community and

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!