An interpretive systemic appraisal of corporate social responsibility and learning

Abstract

This paper presents two contexts of meaning to gain systemic comprehension of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) from the standpoint of a Systems Thinking Practice, called Interpretive Systemology. The first interpretive context is based on a notion of the social sector affected by the performance of the organization, which will allow us to open a space to explore about the ethical issue regarding a definition of boundaries from a standpoint of the organization and challenging some of the insufficiencies of such perspective to deal with the issue of CSR. The second context of meaning is grounded on searching for a social meaning of the organization through a grasping of it by asking about the practices in which the organization is engaged. This context will allow to approach CSR from a historical–ontological perspective in order to consider CSR as a result of an impoverishment of social practices to hold in the social milieu and the appearance of the organization as a way of providing a weak network of relations that is now compelled to find social legitimacy by addressing an unanswered question about the social order in which the organization appears. A core concept in this second context is social learning understood as a process that is currently undermined by a strong emphasis on training in organizational skills without pursuing a process of social learning as the ground upon which organizational skills are funded and articulated. In this sense, CSR is asked to answer about the production not only of its products and services, but also of other collateral effects or by products, such as how the people become engaged in a giving organizational setting. In this regard, it is claimed that community learning and engagement with the organization is central to enhance the CSR from a holistic perspective. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Barriers to Corporate Social Responsibility: the perceptions of a leading non-governmental organization

“…The lack of training and the difficult to access expert knowledge about the topic constitute the knowledge barrier (I2). This evidence is in line with what the literature on CSR training points out (ARIAS, 2008). All the mentioned facts also concern or have close relation to the corporate culture (O3) that occupies second place in the ranking.…”

A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science

“…A recent special issue on systems thinking and CSR highlighted that CSR is predicated upon understanding multiple perspectives and relationships and that the field would benefit from the use of systems thinking and methods (Cordoba and Campbell 2008b). For example, for organisations, CSR is asked to answer questions not only about production and services, but also of other collateral effects or by-products, such as how the stakeholders become engaged to address CSR concerns in a given organisational setting (Arias 2008). In this regard, it is claimed that engagement with the organisation is central to enhance the CSR from a systems perspective (Gregory and Midgley 2003;Knez-Riedl et al 2006;Maon et al 2008).…”

“…In this regard, it is claimed that engagement with the organisation is central to enhance the CSR from a systems perspective (Gregory and Midgley 2003;Knez-Riedl et al 2006;Maon et al 2008). The resolution of specific problems in the context of CSR can be addressed in terms of a participative process involving the organisation and its stakeholders (Arias 2008;Porter 2008). This would address what frequently takes the form of a 'wicked problem' or of 'mess' where agreement on values is unlikely (Ackoff and Emery 1972;Checkland 1981;Rittel and Webber 1973).…”

Corporate social responsibility and requisite holism—supported by tradable permits

“…RH/SR is needed to solve society-wide problems (e.g. McIntosh, 2003;Kubka, 2007;Waddock and Bolwell, 2007;Lahovnik, 2008;Mulej et al, 2007;Toth, 2008;Waddock, 2008;Wall, 2008); it may help the market and its regulators act less one-sidedly (Hrast et al, 2006(Hrast et al, , 2008Bochko, 2007;Kozakov, 2007;Arias, 2008;Cordoba and Campbell, 2008a;Maclagan, 2008;Maon et al, 2008;Porter, 2008;Prasnikar and Cirman, 2008;Reynolds, 2008;Strovsky and Belyaeva, 2008;etc). A totally, i.e.…”