162 164
163 165
164 167
165 168
166 169
167 170
168 171
169 172
170 173
171 174
172 175
173 176
174 177
175 178
176 179
177 180
178 181
179 182
180 183
181 185
182 186
183 187
184 188
185 189
186 190
187 191
188 192
189 193
190 194
191 195
192 196
193 197
194 198
195 199
196 200
197 201
198 202
199 203
200 204
201 205
Smart Innovation Set
coordinated by
Dimitri Uzunidis
Volume 33
Corporate Innovation Strategies
Corporate Social Responsibility and Shared Value Creation
Nacer Gasmi
First published 2020 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
27-37 St George’s Road
London SW19 4EU
UK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2020
The rights of Nacer Gasmi to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020944437
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-654-8
Introduction
Human behavior has always been evaluated, both in terms of its effectiveness and acceptability. Companies are not immune to this type of behavior (Pasquero 2007). The effective component of corporate behavior, which is associated with financial performance, has always been at the heart of corporate discourse. This performance has led companies to only focus on innovation strategies that are likely to further enhance their competitiveness and therefore their profitability. Yet, increasingly, the acceptable dimension of their activities for external and internal stakeholders is also becoming a decisive strategic issue for companies. In recent years, there has been an expectation from consumers that a company’s brands should not only offer them functional advantages, but that companies should also invest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, that is, community initiatives. Since World War II, through their activities to create value (profit), multinationals have generated significant growth that has made it possible to significantly reduce the rate of global poverty and to create positive externalities, such as new jobs, new services and state budgetary contributions through various taxes (Kaplan et al. 2018).
Unfortunately, this growth has not benefited all populations. In developed economies, the most recent gains have benefitted a small proportion of the population, while many members of the working, rural and urban classes have suffered as a result of socio-economic decline. In addition, these enterprises often induce negative social and/or environmental externalities, such as lay-offs, psychosocial risks, occupational accidents and pollution due to climate deregulation. The trajectory of production models is always shaped by the economic, social and political climate of a given period. Until the 1980s, responses to problems of social responsibility were part of a reactive approach to gradually adapt to environmental and social regulations (Berry and Rondinelli 1998).
While the idea of CSR is sometimes presented as a novelty (d’Humières and Chauveau 2001), concerns about the consequences of economic activities have always been prevalent. The idea of CSR, which involves discourse and practice between businesses and society, dates back at least to the beginning of the 20th Century in North America (Acquier and Gond 2007). In the industrial era, paternalism was an early modern form of CSR. Today, social practices must be sustainable because, as Lars Rebien Sorensen, CEO of the Novo Nordisk Group, pointed out, “corporate social responsibility is nothing more than maximizing the value of the company over time, because in the long run, social and environmental problems become financial problems” (Ignatius 2015). The justification for CSR is associated with the representation of the nature and role of the enterprise and its raison d’être.
The more a company is concerned about the impact its activities may have on the rest of society, the more it is considered a socially responsible company (Pasquero 2007). CSR thus becomes an exemplary positive theoretical approach, as it challenges the contractual-legal vision of the company. This contractual vision of CSR, which advocates a more partnership-based approach to corporate governance, is part of the process of creating shared value (CSV). The correlation between societal progress and commercial success is becoming increasingly apparent. To this end, “if all companies could stimulate societal progress in all regions of the world, the result would be a decrease in poverty, pollution, disease, and an increase in corporate profits” (Kramer and Pfitzer 2017). According to these authors, there are two reasons why CSR practice has become imperative for companies. The first concerns the questioning of the legitimacy of businesses, which have come to be perceived as thriving at the expense of the community as a whole.