Many global challenges cannot be addressed by one single actor alone. Achieving sustainability requires governance by state and non-state market actors to jointly realise public values and corporate goals. As a form of public-private governance, voluntary standards involving governments, non-governmental organisations and companies have gained much traction in recent years and have been in the limelight of public authorities and policymakers. From a firm perspective, sustainability standards can be a way to demonstrate that they engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a credible way. To capitalise on their CSR activities, firms need to ensure their stakeholders are able to recognise and assess their CSR quality. However, because the relative observability of CSR is low and since CSR is a contested concept, information asymmetries in firm-stakeholder relationships arise. Adopting CSR standards and using these as signalling devices is a strategy for firms to reduce these information asymmetries, by revealing their true CSR quality. Against this background, this article investigates the voluntary ISO 26000 standard for social responsibility as a form of public-private governance and contends that, despite its objectives, this standard suffers from severe signalling problems. Applying signalling theory to the ISO 26000 standard, this article takes a critical stance towards this standard and argues that firms adhering to this standard may actually emit signals that compromise rather than enhance stakeholders' ability to identify and interpret firms' underlying CSR quality. Consequently, the article discusses the findings in the context of public-private governance, suggests a specification of signalling theory and identifies avenues for future research.
Corporate social responsibility strategy and competitive advantage are important issues for the contemporary discussion on corporations in society when taking into account social and environmental impacts. Empirically, we can see that social responsibility strategies are associated with competitive advantages, such as attracting valuable employees as well as enhancing the company image and reputation. This paper presents a theoretical review that demonstrates the association between social strategy and competitive advantage through the formulation of social strategies that influence and are influenced by opportunities, resources, skills, corporation merits, industry structure and stakeholders. Based on the literature and a case study of Carrefour, a model is proposed for competitive advantages stemming from the formulation of social strategies, which are explained based on their elements and adaptation to societal expectations. This article seeks to enrich the discussion on the strategic management of social responsibility and contribute to the literature on Corporate Social Responsibility as well as Strategy and Competitive Advantage.
The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), defined here as coordinated business actions aimed at a more sustainable world, has always been fairly controversial, both from the perspective of academic discourse and from the perspective of corporate practice. In its most basic terms, questions have been asked about whether corporations can and should actually have social responsibilities and, if so, to what extent? (cf. Davis 1973; Moon et al. 2005). Reflecting on the social responsibilities of business, a scholarly debate has developed that has given rise to a multitude of conceptions on the roles and responsibilities of business in society. These conceptions roughly vary from Friedman’s position that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits (Friedman 1970) to positions about CSR that reflect the principle of sustainable development as formulated in the well-known “Brundtland report” as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987: 204) and that now extend to and is operationalized through the Sustainable Development Goals. While different positions on the responsibilities of business in society remain to be held, partly motivated by political beliefs and worldviews, the question “what is a business for?” is nowadays answered in a way that aligns with a broader conception including taking into account the interests of and being accountable to a broader set of stakeholders than merely those with a financial or otherwise economic concern as well as society as a whole, nature and future generations. A survey among consumers from 10 of the world’s largest countries showed that some 81% thought that firms have responsibilities going (far) beyond creating shareholder value, with 31% thinking that firms should change the way they operate to align with greater social and environmental needs (Cone Communications/Echo 2013).
LINK
