This document discusses corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its integration into corporate strategic plans. It notes that enforcing CSR on businesses may lead to its manipulation to advance corporate self-interest rather than genuine philanthropic goals. The document also discusses how CSR integrated into strategic plans is seen as instrumental to profit motives rather than a show of genuine social concern. It concludes that enforcing CSR risks its manipulation to further corporate economic gains through questionable interactions with society and the environment.

1. An opening note :
The day an organization is born with an aim to serve some specific purpose or its time
bound, value based objectives
"Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave
ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the
workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large"
"CSR is about capacity building for sustainable livelihoods. It respects cultural differences
and finds the business opportunities in building the skills of employees, the community and
the government" "CSR is about business giving back to society"
Abstract
Docketed literature on Corporate
Social Responsibility(CSR)exhibitsheatedcontentionsonthe nature of business-society relations. This
paper seeks to explore this contentious issue in the light of contemporary incorporation of CSR in
business strategic plans. It notes that enforcing CSR on business might lead to
itsmanipulation to advance corporate organisations’ purely self-interested ends rather than pursuing
intrinsicphilanthropicactivitiesforthe goodof society.Aninsightintothe undesirable consequences of
enforcing CSR is given. Using Kantian ethics, the paper notes that the instrumental use of CSR by
corporate organizationsis immoral because it does not treat CSR as an end in itself in the same way as
the profitmaximization is conceptualized in business circles. The paper, therefore, concludes that the
integrationof CSRincorporate organizations’strategicplansisseenasinstrumental tothe realizationof
their profit motives other than a genuine show of social concern.
Introduction
The relationship between business and society has, for long, been a source of intellectual interest to
business ethicists.
Thoughit appearsundeniable that corporate organisations function “…as part of an interactive system
of relationships with individuals and groups in society” the
Ideal business-society relationship remains intractable. Concern for business to contribute towards
social prosperity hasalwayspersistedsince the daysof Aristotlewhoreckonedthe need for business to
reflectthe interestsof the society inwhich their operations are based (Solomon, 1999:83). People live
ina societyandeveryone ispartof the social organisation. Businessis wholly dependent on society. It
can onlythrive inwell-organisedsocietieswhere individualscannot,themselves,produce all theirneeds
and wants;for whenpeople are whollyselfsufficient,the conceptof businessservesnopurpose ontheir
lives.Thus,astable andwell-organisedsocietyfundamentallymakesit possible for people to engage in

2. business. Itisonthis basisthatsocial activistshave stronglyarguedthatthe business communityought,
in return, to show concern to the society that sustains an ideal environment for profit making.
Acknowledges the inseparability of business andethics :
The slim wedge between business and ethics can be bridged by a concept of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR).
Definition of CSR as the performance or non-performance of certain activities by
a private enterprise orcorporate organisation without the expectation of direct economic gain or loss,
for the purpose of improving the social well being of the community or one of its constituent
groups.It isthe dutyof businesscommunitytopromote the welfare of society.Forinstance,acorporate
organisation is said to be socially responsible or a good citizen
if,amongotherthings,itmakessafe productsdevoidof seriousstructural defects, carefully disposes of
its industrial wastes without causing ecological disasters, provides equal employment opportunities
irrespectiveof gender,race orclass and contributes towards solving society’s problems in a number of
ways such as building Old Peoples’ Homes and donating food to the poor. Proponents of the narrow
viewof CSRdo not denythe importance of CSR as part of corporate strategy to ensure that an enabling
social environmentforprofitgenerationand maximisation is created through, among others, prosocial
business practices and helping out society solve its problems.
The core of their argument is that CSR is not important in itself but in so far as it helps them achieve
their self-interested profit motive.
The need for individuals and corporate organisations to be socially responsible is also documented in
the Old Testament.
In the contemporaryworld,business constitutesaveryindispensable social institutionin thatit supplies
society with goods and services and positively and negatively impact on the social and natural
environment. This dominant nature of business in society has led people to be
verywary of itsactivities.Pertinentquestionshave, therefore, been raised with regard to whether the
welfare of society takesprecedence overthe organizational objectivestogenerate and maximizeprofits
or vice- versa.
Manipulation of CSR
With calls for business to show concern to society and the environment gaining momentum in the
contemporary era, frenzy compliance to this concerted demand to consider the impact of their
operationstosocietyislikelyto have disturbing results on the business-society relations. Calls for CSR

3. have tended to take a coercive stance with governments imploring corporate organisations to show
social concern in their operations and interactions with society and the environment.
Thispronouncedcall for business to show social concern is primarily a reaction to widespread cases of
corporate misdeedsinthe formof pollutiontothe environment, disregard of consumer rights through,
amongothers,sellingsubstandardcommoditiesand profiteering and general disregard for the welfare
and well being of stakeholders.
However, a trend is looming whereby the mandatory call for
corporate organisations to contribute towards solving social issues are manipulated to further their
economic gains through
morally scandalous interactions with society and the environment. Corporate organisations’ morally
questionable responsetothiscall ispartlybecause theyare anunwillinglotinthisquasi-coercive call for
themto embarkon CSRactivities.This,therefore,explainsthe mainthesisof this paper that call for CSR
has now been corrupted and manipulated to further enhance the economic advantage of those in
business to the detriment of the rights of consumers and the environment.
When Carroll (1991) revisited his 1979 four-part characterisation of CSR, he replaced the discretionary
with the philanthropic component emphasising that this component also includes the notion of
Corporate Citizenship(CC).Inlightof this, he (1999:289) posits that “the CSR firm should strive to make
a profit, obeythe law,andbe a goodcorporate citizen.”Forhim(ibid),Corporate Citizenship is part and
parcel of a crusade to establish the place of business in society that is by and large dominated by CSR.
The call for corporate organisations to act as responsible citizens has been widespread in the
contemporary management literature. This involves corporate organisations taking an interest in the
whole social world.
The lack of a widelyaccepteddefinitionof CCinthe managementliterature,however,does not weaken
our contention that good CC for its own sake is important for the success of both corporate
organisations and the social world.

5. The above chart clearlyexplainsthe relationshipof anentitywiththe societypure Social Responsibility.
Global level:Sustainability Innovation
At the global level muchattentionhasbeenpaidtothe role venture capital (VC) playsin
Promotingsustainabilityinnovation.The termcleantechnologyventurecapital hasbeen
introducedinorderto delimitthisnewtype of innovationfromearlierenvironmentalA Literature
ReviewonCorporate Social Responsibilityinthe InnovationProcess 20
technologyor"greentech"investmentspopularized inthe 1970's and 80's. The latter
were mainlyend-of-pipe solutionsthatstronglyreliedonparticularlegislationsupport.
Cleantechonthe otherhandis meantto denote new technologyandrelatedbusiness
modelsofferingcompetitive returnsforinvestorsandcustomerswhile providing
solutionstoglobal challengesthroughbreakthroughproductinnovation.Cleantech
venturingisthusdrivenbytwomainforces:technologyandcompetitivenesswhichboth
are superimposedoncertainenvironmental orsocial problemsinordertogenerate new
ideas.Whereas,stakeholder-driveninnovationisveryoutwardsoriented,cleantechor
sustainabilityinnovationusestechnologyandtraditional innovationmechanisms.
PART V:INTERNATIONALSOCIALINNOVATION BRANDS
Social innovationtakesmanyformsespeciallyinaglobal context.Inordertograsp the
differentlevelsandformsof social innovationthe followingexampleswill serve as
inspiration.
ABN AMRO
ABN AMRO is a Dutch corporationworkinginthe financial service industry.Itwas
acquiredin2007 by a consortiumof three European banks,Royal Bankof Scotland
Group, Fortis,andBanco Santander.Before thistake over,ABN AMROhadinitiateda
large scale acquisitionschemeinBrazil in1998. The take overof several majorBrazilian
banksresultedinthe establishmentof BancoABN AMRO Real.Thisnew consortium

6. tooksome pioneeringinitiativeslike the establishmentof anew social-environmental
policywhenmakingdecisionsonloans,the creationof the Real MicroCrédito,which
providedfinancingforsmall businessandentrepreneurs,andthe implementationof the
Ethical Fund,whichwasthe firstSocial ResponsibleInvestmentfundinBrazil.These
initiativeswere primarilyledasafirstmoverwithinthe Brazilianmarket,andintroduced
ina marketcontextwithlittle previousexperience insocial bankingpractices.
Electricité de France
The French electricitycompanyfocusesonelectricityaccessindevelopingpartsof the
world.The initiative,EnergyAccessProgramme throughRural ElectricityandServices
Companies,hashelpedbringingelectricitytorural areas of Mali,Morocco and South
Africa,whichwouldhave beenotherwise ‘off the grid.’EDFhasbroughtelectricityto
800,000 people andthe 2010 goal is one millionpeople.EDFconsidersthis‘adropinthe
ocean’but emphasizesthe difference theymake inthesespecificcountries.Around8-10
percent of electricityisprovidedthroughthisinitiative,affectingalotof people and
businesseswithinthe region.One of the projectsinMoroccoiscalledTemasol andhas A Literature
ReviewonCorporate Social Responsibilityinthe InnovationProcess 22
providedsolarenergyformore than20,000 householdsinrural areas.
Temasol hasundertakenapilotprojectof deliveringdrinkingwatertothe same households,whileat
the same time extendingoperationstootherpartsof the country.The initiativesare
innovatingbothintermsof social capacitybuilding,whileatthe same time havinga low
environmental impact.Itisanimportantfirststep,anda basisforotherpeople tofurther
developinfrastructure inthesecommunities.The presence inthese marketshasallowed
the companyto innovate social schemesfurtherinareasof housing,employmentand
education.(http://knowledge.insead.edu/bottompyramid.cfm)

7. Essilor International
Social innovationinthe Frenchcompanyisrealizedthroughvalue-ledinnovation
systemsandBase of the pyramidactivities.EssilorInternational hasdevelopedboth
manufacturinganddistributionsystemsinrural Indiaforoptical lenses.The initiative
was undertakeninthe absence of adequate eyecare facilities,whichresultedinverylow
usage of spectacles.Uncorrectedrefractive errorisone of the majorcauses of blindness,
whichif detectedandcorrected,wouldgive afreshlease of lifetoindividuals.In2004,
EssilorIndiaestablishedaRural MarketingDivision.Accesswasevenmore important
than costsso innovationwithinbothmanufacturinganddistributionwasurgent.Afteran
initial studyof the situation,Essilorrealizedthatthe lackof consumptionof spectacles
was connectedtoa lack of product access.Essilorhasnow developedasystemof mobile
lowcost testinginrural areas as a meansto reachthe remote,rural populationof India
and manufacture cheap,affordableproductsthroughasteeplearningcurve andimmense
scale inproduction.
Novo Nordisk
Stakeholder-driveninnovationisatthe core of social innovationinNovoNordisk.
Several programmeshave beeninitiatedduringthe pastdecade,all withglobal
perspectivesandgrowthpotential.NovoNordiskhasundertakenashiftfromaninternal
focusto a reflective viewthroughacorporate historyandculture thatlaysthe foundationA Literature
ReviewonCorporate Social Responsibilityinthe InnovationProcess 23
for itsvalues-basedandholisticapproachtodoingbusiness.Byestablishingthe link
betweenhealthasa driverof wealth,ithasbeenpossibletopursue Triple BottomLine
strategiesinaway that increasinglygetsatthe heartof core businessprocesses –inthe
markets,as well asinthe corporate functionsandgovernance mechanisms.The approach
isshapedthroughextensive stakeholderengagement embeddedin organisational

8. behaviourandbusinessoperations.Anexample of these stakeholder-driveninitiativesis
the DAWN programme,the largest-ever,global surveytouncoverdiabetesattitudes,
wishesandneeds.The studyfocusesonthe personbehindthe diseaseandisaimedto
uncoverthe psychosocial aspectsof diabetes.The DAWN programme taughtall parties
involved,thatthe patientsalsoneedmentalencouragementandpositiveguidance
empoweringthemtotake charge of theirownhealth.Suchinnovationinpublichealth
promotionactivitieshelpeffectivelyreduce the burdenof diseasessuchasdiabetes.
Furthermore,NovoNordiskisdrivingNational DiabetesProgrammestoeducate
stakeholdersaswell asactivelysupportingthe growinginternational advocacyplatform
to put chronicdisease preventiononthe political agenda.One suchinitiative isthe
OxfordHealthAlliance.
Philips
The GreenFlagshipsprojectatPhilipsisagatheringandquantitative measuringof the
bestlightingproducts.Tobe consideredaGreenFlagship,aproductmustfirstundergoa
divisionalEcoDesignprocedure.Next,the productorproductfamilyisinvestigatedinat
leastthree of the six GreenFocal Areas.These GreenFocal Areasconsistof Energy
Efficiency,Recyclability,Lifetime Reliability,Packaging,HazardousSubstancesand
Weight.Basedonthisanalysis,the productor productfamilymustbe proventoofferat
least10% improvedenvironmental performance inat leastone GreenFocal Area
comparedto a predecessororcompetitive product,andthe overall lifecycle score mustbe
equal or better.Sowhile manyproductsmaybe “green”,onlythe topEco-designed
products achieve GreenFlagshipstatus.A PhilipsGreenFlagshipproductisabestenvironmental choice
and a product thateitherhasthe bestenvironmentalperformance inthe market,isthe mostinnovative
environmental friendlyproductinitsportfolio,oristhe bestenvironmental solutioninitsapplication
area.The developmentof GreenEnergyhasexperiencedamajorboomwithinthe lastdecade.The
labellingof greenenergy“cleantech”isincreasinglyattractingfinance frombothventure capital and
MNCs. The GreenFlagshiplabel isanexample of thisenvironmental progress.

9. Procter & Gamble
Proctor & Gamble providesanexample of asocial innovative productthatfailedtobe
marketedforprofit.The case is a waterpurificationsystemcalledPUR,whichP&G
developedincollaborationwiththe USCentre forDisease Control forcommercial
markets,targetinglowincome consumers.The producthadclearsocial benefits,
providingcleandrinkingwaterforhouseholdsinplaceswherethe healthrisksof
untreated drinkingwaterare high,especiallyforchildren.Afterthree yearsof market
teststhough,PUR waslookinglike acommercial failure.Manyotherfirmswouldhave
closeddownthe project,butP&G insteadmovedPUR to itscorporate sustainability
department,where focusnolongerreliedsolelyonmakingaprofit.Since 2003, P&G has
soldthe product at cost andworkedinpartnership withnon-profitorganisations,who
distribute the productthroughtheirdevelopmentandhumanitarianrelief networks.
However,byusingthe marketplace P&Gfelttheycouldrelievepeople ataglobal level
whereasphilanthropicactivitywouldnotbe aseffective.Usingsocial marketingmodels
by collaboratingwithNGOscreatedgreaterimpactthancommercial marketing.
Telenor
In 1997 Telenorinitiatedajointventure betweenTelenorandGrameenBank.The
partnershipledtothe formationof twoseparate organizations,GrameenPhoneand
GrameenTelecom.ItwasoperatedbyexperiencedTelenormanagerswithastrategic
objective tomaximize financial returns;Grameen- Telecomwassetupasthe
administrativeinterface tothe existingGrameenBank.Thisdevelopmentbank,founded
by MuhammadYunusin 1976, providesmicrofinance formillionsof poorpeopleinthe
more than 60,000 rural villagesthroughoutBangladesh.Assuch,Telenorcouldbenefit
frommarketaccess and distributionsystemsandGrameencouldintroduce new typesof
productutilizationintotheirbusinessmodel.Furthermore,itprovidedTelenorwith

10. effectiveselectionmethodsof phone ownersandpaymentmethodsbyusingthe
experience of the GrameenBank.The businessmodel isbuildaroundahighdegree of
social interactivityinrural villages,where people use the new systemsbothtoenrich
theirprivate communicationfacilityandenhance businesscapabilities.(The Academyof
ManagementPerspectives,vol.21,number4 (2007) pp 49-63)
TrygVesta
TrygVestastrivestocreate innovationsthatmake adifference forindividualsandsociety
ingeneral usingpeople withbackgroundsinhumanisticdisciplinessuchasphilosophy,
theatre science,musicanddesigninadditiontothe classical economical and
technological disciplines.Withthe creationof theirBusinessLabfocusingonCorporate
Social Innovation,TrygVestaislaunchingincubatorprogrammes;amongthese the
Corporate Venturingproject,whichhelpsthe creationof new venturesthatbuildon
sociallyinnovativeideas.The natural interestin Social InnovationbyTrygVestais
createdthroughthe risksharingbetweenthe companyandcustomersinthe insurance
industry.Itisa social contract thatconnectsthe actors,where sociallyinnovative
schemesare generatingvalue forbothTrygVestaandcustomers.Thisprocessis
fundamental tosuccesssince itrequiresacceptance andsupportfromall partiesinvolved.
Unilever
Unileverdefinestheirsocial innovationasutilizingconsumerconcernsaboutsocial and
environmental issues.These provide opportunitiesforbrandstoconnectwiththeir
consumersat a deeperlevel and,indoingso,gain competitive andsalesadvantage
throughcross-sectorpartnerships.ThisallowsUnilevertodobusinessandtackle social
problemsatthe same time.Unileverfocusesonthe emergingmarkets.Toachieve
optimal resultsforboththe companyandlocal societal development,local marketsmust
teachand change Unilever,notthe otherwayaround.Exploitinglocal strengthsinstead

11. of tryingtoovercome local weaknessesisatthe core of businessactivities.Anexample
of the social innovationinitiativesatUnileveristhe Lifebuoysoaptohelpreduce child
mortalityof diarrhoea.ObstaclesfacedespeciallyinIndiaare illiteracy,rural massesnot
reachedbymass-media,andperceptionsthatif hands lookcleanthey are clean.To
overcome these obstacles,Unileverhasinitiatedthe largestrural healthandhygiene
educationprogramme everundertakeninIndia.Educationteamsare visiting
communities andschoolstoreachthe broad masses. Inorderto helplow income
householdsthe soapissoldin18-gram bars,enoughforone personto washtheirhands
once a dayfor 10 weeks.Anotherprojectisthe “Shakri”,whichdealswithreaching
small Indian villageswithlessthan2,000 people.Lackof retail distributionnetworksto
reach the 500,000 smallervillagesbroughtinnovativethinkingatthe core of strategy.
The solutionwasrecruitingwomenfromthese small villagestoact as freelance direct
salesoperators.CooperationbetweenUnileverandmanywomen’sself-helpgroups
(IndianNGOs) providedtrainingandeducationtothese womenandmade themlocal
entrepreneurs.The womentypicallydoubledthe householdincome tendingtouse the
moneyon educationfortheirchildren.Since 2000,UnileverhasextendedShakri tocover
80,000 villages.There are manymore productexamplesforinstance inIndia,Indonesia
and Brazil.
CONCLUSIONS
So far verylittle isknownabouthowsocial innovationhappensandhow we can
encourage more of it.This literature review hasaimedatprovidingmore thanjustan
enumerationof extantpublications.Bysuggestingalogical framework(derivedfrom
Wood,1991) to structure the differentconceptsusedinliterature we hope toadvance

12. towardsa betterunderstandingof the corporate social innovationprocess.One important
insightthathas emergedfromourdiscussionisthe factthatsocial innovationcanemerge
fromfour differentlevelsof analysis.
In our analysesof corporate social innovationwe willthusneedtoaskthe following
questions:
 Whichemerginginstitutionsare drivingandenablingsocial innovation?Andhow do
innovatorsdeal withrigiditiescreatedfromextantinstitutionsthathamperchange?
 2. What makespeople perceive social innovationasbothdesirableandfeasible?And
whatturns themintosocial entrepreneurs?
 3. What role can andshouldstakeholdersplayinthe innovationprocessandwhatare
the pitfallsof suchan inclusive approach?
 4. What role doesthe source of financingplayforsocial innovationandhow doessocial
innovationventuringattractinvestors?