European Commision: A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis (

Corporate Social Responsibility boils down to a pair of simple questions: „What do we do?” (i.e. „What product or service are we offering?”) and „How do we do it?” (i.e. „How our activity impacts the broadly understood, environment: suppliers, employees, local community, natural environment?”) (…) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), is the way of creating profits and not just the way of sharing those profits. CSR is a style and strategy of management based on multidimensional relationships. It is not a „charity detergent” to be used to improve ones image. Za: CSR Raport Specjalny, Dymowski i Szymańska, Brief

John D. Rockefeller Andrew Carnegie

Dahlsrud „ How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions”: Dimensions: 1) Environmental 2) Societal (mutual influence between corporations and society) 3) Stakeholder concept 4) Voluntary nature 5) Economic (CSR as a business strategy) The definitions show that CSR is nothing new at a conceptual level; business has always had social, environmental and economic impacts, been concerned with stakeholders,be they the government, customers or owners, and dealt with regulations. This has been managed through established patterns developed over many years. However, at an operational level, the story is different.... CSR management tools are needed, in addition to the previously established patterns, to develop and implement a successful business strategy (p.6)

 Working towards sustainable developement/environmental causes  Investing in human resources/social capital  Supporting local communities  Philantrophy  Social accounting  Business model

 Of 250 biggest MNEs, 64% published CSR reports in 2005 (Foote, Gaffney, Evans, CSR: Implications for Performance, Total Quality Management, 2010)  ONZ: Global Compact (1999) and the Geneva Declaration(2007)  EC: European Alliance for CSR  ISO: standard (2010)  SA 8000 standard  AA 1000 standard  Index FTSE4Good

 ((supervised by the Responsible Business Forum)

 76% polled believed that corporations are engaging in CSR initiatives only for the publicity (2008, PBS DGA i On Board PR)  30% were ready not to purchase a given product based on the negative ethical reputation of the producer (GfK Polonia for ‘Rzeczpospolita’ 2008)  20% would pay 10% more if the manufacturer adhered to responsible business practices (GfK Polonia for ‘Rzeczpospolita’ 2010)

British Petroleum -> Beyond Petroleum

 Reputation (leading to increased profitability, but also useful with risk management)  Employees loyalty and morale  Competitiveness

1. Moral obligation 2. Sustainability 3. Mandate to operate (given by the stakeholders) 4. Reputation Porter i Kramer, 2006, „Strategy and Society”, Harvard Business Review CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed – it can be a potent source of innovation and competitive advantage. To meet this goal, Porter and Kramer propose a new way to look at the relationship between business and society that does not treat corporate growth and social welfare as a zero-sum game. This framework allows an individual company to identify the social consequences of their actions and discover opportunities to benefit society and themselves by strengthening the competitive context in which they operate Foote et al. “Corporate social responsibility: Implications for performance excellence”, Total Quality Management,

 Results of studies are mixed…  Difficulties: -> many definitions of CSR make it hard to properly compare different companies/industries/markets -> CSR effects are often claimed to be long-term and subtle, how to measure that? How to distinguish between ‘societal’ and ‘business’ outcomes? -> Different contexts (state of regulation in given country, a history of given corporation)

 „neoliberal” perspective: -> CSR is unnecessary, corporations have obligations only to: 1)create profit, 2)not to infringe of the rights of others (obey the law) -> CSR distorts the market, it causes a misallocation of resouces – into projects that are not profitable or difficult to account for -> CSR hinders an effective managment of the corporation: by directing resources to new posts or departments, by opening to stakeholders influence and risking the politicization of the organization …there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits…

 Left/critical perspective: -> definitional confusion makes it difficult to distinguish between ‘honest’ social commitment and a clever PR -> CSR can be an excuse for the companies providing ethically questionable goods and services (tobacco, weapons) -> CSR projects can have an unforseen consequences (or hidden targets) of taking away traditional public services from the state/local government, effectively causing the ‘erosion’ of the state

 Central government level activities: -> ministerial initiatives(MPiPS, MG…) -> EU initiatives (e.g. a representative in the CSR High Level Group coordinated by the EC) -> international organizations(World Bank, UN- UNDP)

 Overlapping of interests  Encouraging CSR (promotion, incentives) can attract investments  Promoting CSR can be a good political strategy, provided that the voters are interested

 Promoting the CSR standards (facilitating access to information concerning the procedures, helping finance the neccessary investments, promoting the companies already adhering to the standards)  Employing social and environmental requirements in public procurement  Organizing contests and promotional campaings  Promoting inter-sectoral initiatives  Formal positions for the CSR specialists or managers

THANK YOU !