Suchergebnisse

PurposeThis paper aims to explore the general question: Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) a business duty, as many contend, or really just a benign delusion?Design/methodology/approachTo provide an answer to the question the CSR literature is examined from both theoretical and practical perspectives. This paper offers a broad general review and practical assessment of contemporary thinking about CSR. It investigates three precise questions. These are: who pays for CSR, who makes decisions about CSR, and what are the long‐term, potential implications of CSR?FindingsThe three most relevant theoretical frameworks are each found wanting. In particular, none offers managers clear operational guidance. So, although CSR is recognised as morally attractive, it is judged unhelpful to force it on business through regulatory or legislative means. From the questions posed it is revealed that answers to the first two questions are quite clear. The answer to the third is conjecture. The paper finds that none of these questions has yet received adequate attention. The paper offers three main findings: that CSR has costs which may go unrecognised; that it draws managers into decisions which may lie outside their competence; and, if it were widely adopted on a major scale, CSR would have implications for government and civil society which we have scarcely begun to think about.Practical implicationsAt the same time, the proven capacity of business to contribute to society through discretionary expenditure is huge. The paper therefore concludes that it is sensible to encourage business to do more. It follows that CSR should be popularised but not imposed.Originality/valueThe paper provides useful information on CSR as a business duty.

PurposeThis paper aims to offer an Australian perspective on the recent crisis of confidence in corporate governance and its legislative and regulatory aftermath. It is informative because Australia's experience is directly comparable with that of the USA but its professional and regulatory traditions are much less prescriptive.Design/methodology/approachThe author dissects the corporate scandal of recent years and analyses the several issues which have arisen. Problem elements, once identified, are evaluated separately, followed by an examination of the responses in each country. The main value of the paper lies in the separation and categorisation of these issues. For clarity, the author groups them as technical, political and cultural and uses these three labels to distinguish between problems which are the responsibility of the accounting profession, the responsibility of regulatory agencies, and those faced by managers individually. There is brief mention of some other groups, like suppliers of professional business services, who have also fallen under critical scrutiny. At the same time, other groups associated with contemporary financial scandal are omitted for lack of space.FindingsThe paper includes some observed contrasts between the consequences of scandal in the two jurisdictions and ends with a number of personal judgements.Originality/valueIt is hoped that the judgements made in this paper may offer food for thought and some guidance for those seeking to advance best practice in this important but delicate area.