Sriramesh, K., Ng, C. W., Soh, T. T., & Luo, W. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility and Public Relations: Perceptions and Practices in Singapore. In, S. K. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.) The debate over Corporate Social Responsibility, New York: Oxford University Press.
Key issue: the state of the art of CSR in Singapore.
The article opens with a description of the demographic, political and economic environment of Singapore.
Then, an overview of CSR practices and perceptions in Asia and Singapore follows. CSR in Asia developed mainly due to globalization. CSR perceptions and practices are influenced by culture, religion, politics and socio-economic conditions (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001). Eraly studies of CSR in Singapore adopted the disclosure method, based on slef-reported CSR performance via reports or websites, which has limitations: social desirability, underrepresentation of smaller companies.
The definition of CSR adopted in the paper is from Bowd, Harris and Cornelissen (2003: 19): “CSR is corporations being held accountable by explicit or inferred social contract with internal and external stakeholders, obeying the laws and regulations of government and operation in an ethical manner which exceeds statutory requirements”.
Afterwards, a literature review of the CSR concept follows, divided into 3 sections:
- Business and society approach: corporations have obligations to society, business and society are in a symbiotic relationship; developed at a time of unconstrained corporate power. Several models are introduced. Carrol’s pyramid (1991). Lantos (2001) classification of CSR: ethical (minimal economic, leagla and ethical requirements), altruistic (philantropy at the expense of shareholders) and strategic (philantropy with a return).
- Economic approach: Adam Smith (1863) thoerized that the maximum social welfare is created by the maximization of private corporate profits, based on a division of labour between business and state. The market self-organizes with an “invisible hand” mechanism towards perfect allocative efficiency. According to Lantos (2001), economic CSR is defined as paying taxes and wages, rather than enslaving employees. According to Carr (1996), corporations only have to obey the law of land. Friedman (1970) asserted that “the business of business is business”.
- Stakeholder approach: many other groups then shareholders have interests in the corporation (Freeman 1984, 2001) and must be staisfied. Stakeholders are classified in primary (employees, customers, suppliers) and secondary (media, NGOs…).
The research methodology is then described: self administered web questionnaires and personal interviews.
Finally, findings are discussed in details. CSR decisions are mainly centralised. 3 profiles of corporations are found: proactive (motivated by corporate values and agenda to engage in CSR), accomodative (follow guidelines, regulations and some stakeholder feedback to implement minimum CSR), reactive (react to events on an ad-hoc basis). Evaluation of CSR activities is rarely carried out and some corporations do not even set goals.
7 stakeholders (drivers) able to influence CSR in singapore are identified:
- Government
- NGOs
- Mass media
- Corporations
- Trade associations
- Consumers
- Employees
Government and corporations rated highly on potential impact anc current activity level. This is due to Singapore’s political environment, characterized by corporatism (centralized wage bargaining involving government, unions and employers; egaliatarianism or communitarianism). The National Trade Union Congress have a symbiotic relationship with the government and developed a tripartite alliance, having a cooperative approach rather than confrontational towards employers. Alegret (1998) identifies four types of corporatism:
- Ancient guild’s corporatism
- Traditional or anti-revolutionary
- State-controlled fascist-oriented
- Technocratic or neo-corporatism
Singapore is of the technocratic type. Moreover, it is communitarian (Sriramesh & Rivera, 2006): seeking a correct balance between individual autonomy and social cohesion (Garfinkle, 2006).