& RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions & Managerial Implications
Corporate social responsibility has postulated as a global trend for business, national governments and international institutions (UNDG, 2015) on their purpose of achieving long term competitive advantage and a sustainable future.
In the case of businesses, CSR has acquired a prime relevance position after having evolved from a charity perspective to become a strategic management element.
This process of change has been promoted from governments and international institutions, which have claimed that our global society is in need of a responsible private sector that can create mutual long term value both for businesses and for stakeholders as the Global Reporting Initiative, United Nations Global Compact &
World Business Council for Sustainable Development stated in 2015.
This process of evolution has made the CSR to vary over the time, and even now there is no agreed upon a unique CSR definition (Argandoña & Hoivik, 2009; Carrol, 1999; Dahlsrud, 2006; Garriga & Mele 2004; Moir, 2001; Nguyen, 2014). Thus, trying to solve this matter, the present research provided a definition that encloses some of the most important concepts related to CSR, and that states as follow “a concept whereby companies integrate, social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis and that delivers long-term value in financial, environmental social and ethical terms”.
For evidence the elements included in the CSR definition, we developed a model for empirically contrast the local and global influences of CSR and test their relationships with BP. Thus, the model named “Glocal CSR” was thought for fitting the glocalization condition that CSR is immersed worldwide.
The research was conducted in Spain and Taiwan surveying employees, middle managers and top managers of manufacturing organizations in order to compare the results within an international context.
106
As the results from the structural equation model have shown, the global values and rights promoted by the United Nations Global Compact, which were adapted into questionnaire items, contribute in a positive and direct way to the CSR status and condition of organizations.
Moreover, the study showed how the concern for the Environment is the leading factor that drives organizations to engage in CSR, and therefore, the factor that business should focus if they want to have the highest repercussion on CSR. This result was also found when the Spanish and Taiwanese samples were investigated independently. From these analyses, we can conclude that the research show a common position from the organizations of both countries regarding the concern for a sustainable future.
This international common position regarding environment might be influenced by the Paris Agreement for Climate Change, where the implementation of mandatory and penalizing international regulations regarding sustainability and environmental issues is being debated creating a non precedent panorama (UNDG, 2015; UNFCCC, 2016).
Introducing a local perspective, the research presented the employees, the local stakeholders and the media & lobby groups (such as the union of organization or other local pressure groups), as driving forces and sources of pressure for organizations on their way to adopt CSR. The results support what Hertz (2004) and McWilliams Siegel
& Wright (2006) stated regarding these sources of pressure. But the results also showed that the local influences represent even greater forces than the international values promoted by the UNGC, especially in Spanish organizations.
Furthermore, employees raised as the main and more active driven force of CSR for companies, fact that reveal the concern that citizens (in their role of workers) have about the future of our planet.
As far as CSR is concerned, the results obtained from the descriptive statistics show high scores of CSR coming from Taiwanese organizations, and contrarily to what was introduced by Sharma (2013) stating that Taiwanese companies presented low ranks in international CSR standards, from this study we suggest that further research could be done to verify and contrast this e results in the near future.
107
Within CSR, the study positioned “Vision, values and strategy”as the most dominant factor. This result suggests that in order to have higher CSR, companies should state a strategic vision that will lead the operational future of CSR. As pointed by (UNGC, 2007; UNGC & Deloitte, 2010), the engagement of CSR starts with a vision from the leaders of organizations, in this way, the research support the concept of strategic vision as the key element of enhancing CSR, and consequently that can bring long term competitive advantage for businesses as the European Parlamentarian Raffaele Baldassarre expressed (UNGC, 2014b).
Lastly, one of the main achievements from this research was pointed from the results that support CSR as a significant direct and positive influence towards BP, and hence this results are accordingly to what (Carrol & Shabanna, 2010; EC, 2014;
Isaksson, 2012; KPMG, 2013; Mishra & Suar, 2010; Nguyen, 2014; UNGC & DNVGL, 2015; UNGC, DNVGL & MM&S, 2015; Wang, Dou & Jia, 2015) found in their previous researches, stating that CSR has positive effects on Business Performance of organizations.
Regarding BP, the research revealed the internal business perspectives of organizations as the business facet that is most influenced by CSR. Thus and in order to maximize the effects of CSR and business performance, companies should focus on their operational system as the first way to increase their CSR status and their BP.
Oppositely, and as appreciated from the study, the financial performance has postulated as the factor which is less enhanced by CSR, this result evidences that organizations are currently immersed in a restructuration phase, adapting CSR into their structure, investing financial resources that there were not needed to spent before. This stage evidence what UNGC (UNGC, 2014a, p.7) cited “businesses are responding, moving beyond their basic responsibilities and going further into a strategic opportunity space”, and therefore, we cannot more than appreciate the efforts of organizations which are aware of the importance of CSR.
This global vision of the necessity for developing strategic CSR has permeated in the society, being confirmed as a milestone to achieve a common sustainable future (UN, 2015). But besides this promising scenario, the CSR pathway has demonstrated to add long term competitive advantages of firms, as well as benefitting the image and
108
performance, will drive CSR leading companies gaining international attractiveness and competitiveness (EC, 2014b; UN, 2015).
Therefore, from this study we encourage business to engage into CSR, because it provides benefits for them, but it also provides benefits for all of us.
Managerial Implications for Spanish Manufacturing Industry
After the difficult economic situation that Spain has been facing since 2008, which made the country enter in a long-term and deep restructuration, the manufacturing industry, reporting $277,300,000,000 (19th income) in exports according to CIA (2015), could be one of the key elements to carry Spain’s economy back to welfare and global leading positions.
For this objective, the industry needs to walk by the hand of European Union and the national institutions that are promoting CSR with the aim to enhance innovation, attract foreign investment and new business opportunities while increasing the international competitiveness advantage that other regions like Asia and North America are currently holding.
This research, highlighting the Glocal CSR model and Questionnaires, can be used by companies with two main purposes: firstly, as a tool for exploring the factors affecting CSR and secondly, as a way for evaluating CSR status and its effects on Business Performance, and therefore analyze where the strongest and weakest elements are.
Lastly, from this research we encourage Spanish businesses to engage into CSR promoting the UNGC values and rights. Going one step ahead of the world, might lead into a long term better business performance, especially after international ESG (environmental, social and governance) mandatory regulations will be settled in the near future (EC, 2014a).
Managerial Implications for Taiwanese Manufacturing Industry
The significant drop of Taiwan’s exports by 48.8 billion US$ in 2015 comparing with 2014 data (CIA, 2015) caused by the increasing global business competitiveness in the Asian region is putting pressure in Taiwanese manufacturing organizations. This industry, considered as the engine of the country, have decreased its financial revenues
109
drastically and thus, this sector needs innovation and adaptation to the international global trends if it wants to maintain its worldwide position as one of the leading manufacturing sectors in electronics.
However, the main findings of the research are very promising for Taiwanese manufacturing companies in terms of gaining international competitive advantage in the near future.
The results show that Taiwanese employees are highly committed with CSR, considering themselves as an active local influence to make Taiwanese manufacturing organizations engaging in CSR as suggested by the economist Noreena Hertz (2004), and hence the internal motivation presented in the organizations will make business to develop and grow in a sustainable way.
In other words; knowing the importance of what CSR implies in the current global society, Taiwanese manufacturing organizations are moving forward implementing strategic CSR and communicating their status and strategic actions, willing to adapt to the international trend, and hence, with the look on gaining international competitiveness adapting their internal business operation to CSR based activities.
Therefore, this research can be also utilized as a tool to research the stage in which organizations are immersed regarding CSR.
Conclusions from the Comparative Analysis between Spain and Taiwan
The research found out significant differences between Spain and Taiwan on the 4 factors presented in Chapter 5. From these results we can conclude that, contrary to what assumed by Sharma (2013), Taiwanese organizations present higher values than those obtained from Spain in two of the factors within CSR.
A priori, based on previous researches, international indexes and the volume of companies engaging in international CSR standards, Spain was theorized to present higher scores regarding CSR. However, the results extracted from the comparative T-test analysis showed how in most of the factors, there are no significant differences from the average values, therefore this results does not agreed upon previous studies in
110
this sense. Furthermore, based on the Taiwanese answers, it can be assumed that Taiwanese organizations are adopting international standards for CSR, while it was shown the high concern of Taiwanese participants about CSR.
From the results retrieved from the paired T-test, we remark those which presented significance differences between both samples.
In the case of UNGC, the factor anti-corruption turned presenting significant higher average in Taiwan than in Spain. This result reveals the low level of trust in organizations transparency of the Spanish workers in their role of citizens after the financial crisis of 2008.
Besides anti-corruption, Taiwan showed significant higher scores in the factor Media and Lobby Groups considered as one of the main local sources of pressure for organizations. This result reveals the higher concern of Taiwanese organizations about their reputation, fact that supports what in Chinese and Taiwanese cultures is considered as a fundamental part. The reputation, image and honesty shown to others are considered as fundamental elements in the society and an important fact to take care.
Lastly, within CSR, Taiwan organization showed significant higher values in the vision and the stakeholder management, while other variables Spain showed higher results but without being considered statistically significant. Therefore, it also must be said, that even if the statistical analyses don’t reveal significance, Spain also present higher means for half of the factors tested and hence we may state that the manufacturing sector from both countries, occupying the 19th and 21st positions in the global export income (CIA, 2015), present more similarities than dissimilarities regarding UNGC, LI, CSR and BP.
Conclusions from the Comparative Analysis between Different rank Employees
As found in the results from Chapter 5, different rank employees present heterogeneous self-perceptions about their own organizations.
These findings support what Edward Cone from Oxford Economics Society found in his survey presented in the conference HR Leadership: 2020 Workforce and
111
the Future of Work (2014) revealing great differences in the perceptions about workers and organizations status between employees and managers.
Stating in a metaphor, this research cites “top management are the brain of an organization, middle managers the nerves that drive the desires from it and lastly employees are the muscles that move the whole structure”.
Considering the results, from this study we encourage organizations to share knowledge within their structures as UNGC (2007) recommended, and therefore top management, should share the knowledge about rules and regulations they are adopting with the middle managers and with employees if they want to achieve higher business performance. This lack of homogeneity in the knowledge and self-perception gathered from the people who compose organizations, might be caused by lack of internal communication and reports.
In this sense, as the PLS results in Taiwan have shown, the communication and reporting factor aroused as the most dominant for CSR and thus, the one which has a higher influence in BP. From this value we can state that organizations with higher external and internal communication have higher BP and therefore we believe in the promotion of communication as a way to improve organizations’ performance.
But furthermore, the comparative analysis might help organizations gain knowledge from the common perceptions of the factors that didn’t present significant differences. From these results, it can be stated that there is a unified vision across the whole organization structure regarding the “real” and current status of those factors.
Hence, this information can be fully utilized in order to promote CSR and BP while oppositely it also helps detecting the leaks and different perception of employees with middle and top manager, opening a room for improving the factors by approaching position and ideas from the different employees’ levels.
To conclude we can say that the Glocal CSR questionnaire due to the inclusion of sensitive topics such as GCHR, GCLR. GCAC, LIE…. It can be used for organizations as an internal tool to identify and improve the knowledge gaps from different rank employees regarding the Glocalization of CSR and its effect.
112
Future Research Recommendations
In summary, the Glocal CSR confirmed to be statistically consistent in different regions and industries as shown when analyzing the Pilot Test, the main sample study and the Spanish and Taiwanese sample studies’.
However, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to other industries or regions and thus, pending further research might be done to contrast the consistency of this model in the different international contexts and industries.
Moreover, the size of the sample included in this research (N=181) creates the necessity of interpreting cautiously the results. Hence, further researches with larger samples or individual organizations are recommended to contrast the findings of the present study.
To conclude, the author suggest future researchers to implement longitudinal researches, surveying Spanish and Taiwanese manufacturing industry in the next years to ascertain and understand the evolution theses industries and their status with the glocalization procedures of CSR and its impact on their Business Performance.
113
REFERENCES
Adams, C.A., Hill, W.Y. & Roberts, C.B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in western Europe: Legitimating corporate behavior? British Accounting Review, 30, 1–21.
Argandoña, A. & Hoivik, H. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility: one size does not fit all. Collecting Evidence from Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 221-234.
Bartolomeo, M. (1994). A new tool for environmental accounting: An approach from Italy. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 14(1), 6-8.
Beaujolin, F. (2004). European trade unions and corporate social responsibility: Final report to the European trade union confederation. Brussels: ETUC. Retrieved from:
Journal of Business Ethics, 48(4), 317-333.
Boletín Oficial del Estado [BOE] (2008). Real Decreto 221/2008, de 15 de febrero, por elque se crea y regula el Consejo Estatal de Responsabilidad Social de las Empresas. [Spanish Government. BOE nº 52, 29 February 2008]. Retrieved from: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2008-3868.
Bondy, K., Moon, J. & Matten, D. (2012). An institution of corporate social responsibility in multi-national corporations: Form and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 281-299.
Campbell, J. (2007). Why should corporations behave in responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] (2015). The world factbook 2015. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.
114
Cetindamar, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: The case of the United Nations Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 163-176.
China Britain Business Council [CBBC] (2015). One belt one road. A role for UK
companies in developing China’s new initiative. Retrieved from
http://www.cbbc.org/cbbc/media/cbbc_media/One-Belt-One-Road-main-body.pdf.
Club de Excelencia en Sostenibilidad [CES] (2013). Estudio multisectorial sobre el estado de la responsabilidad corporativa de la gran empresa en España. 2013.
Retrieved from
http://www.clubsostenibilidad.org/main.asp?id_pagina=43&id_doc=43&id_pagi na_red=26.
Cochran, P. L. (2007). The evolution of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 50(6), 449-454.
Combs J. G., Ketchen D. J., Crook T. R. & Shook C. L. (2005). The dimensionality of organizational performance and its implications for strategic management research. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 2(5), 259-286.
Commission of the European Communities [CEC] (2001). Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibilities. Retrieved from https://www.iisd.org/business/issues/eu_green_paper.aspx.
Christophe, B. & Bebbington, J. (1992). The French Bilan Social: a pragmatic model for the development of accounting for the environment? A research note. British Accounting Review, 24(3), 281-290.
Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13.
Do, J. P. & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47-73.
Doane, D. (2005). The myth of CSR. The problem with assuming that companies can do well while also doing good is that markets don’t really work that way.
Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3, 23-29.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, multi-faceted job-products, and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 319-335.
Duran, M. B., & Radojicic, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and nongovernmental organizations. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Linkoping University, Sweden.
115
European Commission [EC] (2013a). An analysis of policy references made by large EU companies to internationally recognised CSR guidelines and principles.
Retrieved from:
European Commision [EC] (2013c). Public opinion in the European Union. Retrieved
October from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb80/eb80_first_en.pdf.
European Commission [EC] (2014). Corporate social responsibility. National public policies in the European Union. Compendium. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/corporate-social-responsibility-national-public-policies-european-union-compendium-2014.
Fernández Martín, R. M., de la Fuente del Moral, F. & Gago, P. (2011). Corporate social responsibility across Europe: A good example from the Nordic Countries?
Helsiknky University Discipline of Economics Discussion Paper 648.
Foss, N. J. (1997). Chapter 5. Resources, firms, and strategies: a reader in the resource-based perspective. England: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
Garriga, E. & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.
Gond, J. P., El-Akremi, A., Igalens, J. & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility influence on employees. Nottingham University ICCSR Research Paper Series No.54-2010.
Gray, R.H., & Symon, I.W. (1992). Environmental reporting: BSO/Origin. Integrated Environmental Management. 2, 8–10.
Global Reporting Initiative [GRI], United Nations Global Compact [UNGC] & World Business Council for Sustainable Development [WBCSD] (2015). A guide for business action to advance the sustainable development goals. Draft for public comment. Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgsproposal.
Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (2005). Corporate social
Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (2005). Corporate social