On one level you cannot ever determine intentions. But rather than getting stuck with the question of whether they are ‘really’ serving the public good you can simply ask whether their actions serve the good.

Reframing this as a question in virtue ethics you can simply ask are they doing good things rather than are they ‘really‘ good (something you can never know).

In virtue ethics this kind of question is simpler to answer because you just say a good person is someone who does good things.

Thanks for the answer Kevin and reframing the question. I am looking for the impact of their action on society as well as on their sales which might help me determining the impact.

Even if they are using it as a marketing tool, the only thing that matters is whether they are serving good causes. However, you should also consider the shareholders' interests here and whether their money are being spent wisely and rationally by the managers of their firms. The right balance entails serving good cause but also serving the shareholders' value.

We should always remember that the ultimate (and often the only) aim of the firm is earning profit. A Finnish bank manager (Nordea) Björn Wahlroos says that the only interest group that managemen is resposible for is shareholders of the firm.

Dear Prof Pekka,

thanks for your view but if it is the case then CSR is a mere marketing strategy of the organisations?

Thank you. I think it is so, more or less.

It is subject to contexts. That's why there are many researches conducted to find out whether it boost up the firm performance or able to attract the potential talented employees.

In my humble opinion, it actually works as marketing tool in the positive aspects, such as increase corporation reputation and attract talent employees. There are research conducted in various part of the world in different contexts and setting.

Therefore, there is the saying of Doing Good, Bring Good.

Some research that conducted in similar veins.

Regards

mei peng

A company's management has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and CSR directly opposes this, argues Aneel Karnani, Professor at the University of Michigan. That is why some companies talk about CSR but do nothing about it. This is called greenwashing.This was also the classical view of the CSR which says that it is the first and foremost duty of the managers of the company to make more and more profits for the shareholders,if they spend some part of it on CSR activities ,it would be injustice with the owners of the company.

i��O;

Hello, colleagues, the answer is both. There are those who really serve the community but some of them are merely using it as a tool for advertisement. Even those who really serve the community it is also facilitating advertisement for the business products. In Tanzania for instance, communication companies like Tigo Tanzania, Vodacom Tanzania and Airtel Tanzania are doing so much for the society but in return many appreciate by using the services of these telephone companies.

Generally, is so far as companies exist to maximize the wealth of capital providers, their CSR strategy will always have marketing and branding in mind. several studies have established that CSR enhance firm performance and these findings have actually encouraged most firms to be socially responsible. But you cannot discount the impact of these CSR initiatives on people's lives, communities etc. the downside however is that because of its marketing intentions, firms seems to focus on CSR activities that gives them maximum visibility and enhance their image and reputation rather than what the local stockholders really need.

This actually leads to the theoretical debate between the socio-political perspective and the economic/decision-usefulness angle. From an economic/decision-usefulness angle, one could argue that companies will only behave in a responsible way only if the benefits from such behavior exceeds its related costs (Positive Accounting Theory); in this case (and relating to your question), CSR would look as a marketing tool if it improves the bottom-line. Conversely, the socio-political perspective argues that such behavior spring from the need of companies to legitimize their business in the eyes of the stakeholders (Stakeholders Theory and Legitimacy Theory). Mind you, only the socio-political perspective has so far proved usefulness in the literature. To conclude, I agree with Kevin Morell's view above: "rather than getting stuck with the question of whether they are ‘really’ serving the public good you can simply ask whether their actions serve the good".

Elite,

I agree but there should be some research framework by which we may identify the purpose of CSR, whether it is service to the society or mere marketing strategy

I think its the combination of both but then all efforts still lead to profit or wealth maximisation.

There are two schools of thought in CSR. One says that companies have a duty towards especially the community in which they operate, and another says that once they employ people in the community, CSR is not necessary. Once CSR is done, I believe the main aim is to give back to the society, but it indirectly also showcase the company in the form of advertisement. This is why I believe those who don't believe in it are even now doing it. Marketing therefore, is inevitable in CSR.

It depends upon how you perceived it. Whether they used it for marketing their organisation or not, but through CSR, at least they are contributing something towards the society in which they are operating. It should be appreciated. We should encourage them or compel them to go for more and more activities through CSR for the welfare of the society.

I Think One can not say if organizations really serve the society under CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) or it’s rather used by organisations as a marketing tool until the relationship between investment in Social Investment and Sales which is a measure of market performance is determined empirically. Thank you.

Without any reference to any extant literature and studies in this area, an organization's choice to participate in any CSR activity could be driven by:

1. Societal pressures

2. Professional pressures

3. Peer-pressure

All along I have always thought that there must be "something in it" for any participating organizations, be it creating visibility or "identifying" itself with the society, and to emphasize it more, the most vulnerable in the society, where it has a higher impact. This is because the organization will be viewed as "more philanthropic" and cares for the less fortunate.

I however am of the opinion that organizations should engage in CSR without any coercion, be it from the pressures listed above or others. It should be a "genuine" concern for the community and our natural home, the Earth, without which, we have no habitat unless we keep trying the Moon or Mars! #My 2 cents

...A small addition to sum it up, "The engagement in CSR is a demonstration of an organization's desire to do WELL [sic. nice bottom-line] by doing GOOD [sic. giving back to society]" - Servaes andTamayo (2013), Fombrun (2005).

There are experiences of both kings.

No, not just a marketing tool. Now it has become an established fact that a number of companies are really serving society under CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), and thereby, raising the quality of life of the masses.