Ó Springer 2006
Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 72:243–262
DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9168-4
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):
Theory and Practice in a Developing
Country Context
ABSTRACT. After providing an overview of Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) research in different contexts,
and noting the varied methodologies adopted, two robust
CSR conceptualizations – one by Carroll (1979, ‘A ThreeDimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, The Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497–505)
and the other by Wood (1991, ‘Corporate Social Perfor-
Dr. Jamali is Assistant Professor of Management at the Olayan
School of Business, American University of Beirut. She holds a
BA in Public Administartion from the American University of
Beirut, and a Ph.D. in Social Policy and Administration, from
the University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Her research
interests encompass corporate social responsibility, public private
partnerships, learning organizations and women issues. She
worked as an expert consultant on projects funded by the World
Bank, the US Agency for International Development,
NGOs, and other regional and local public and private firms.
She is the author of numerous studies and international peer
reviewed publications in various international journals,
including the Journal of Management Development, the
International Journal of Public Sector Management, the
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Business Process Management Journal, Public
Works, Management and Policy and Women in Management Review.
Ramez Mirshak Graduated with honors from the American
University in Cairo (AUC) with a Bachelor of Arts in
Business Administration in February 2001, then worked
for two years in Egypt in the field of marketing and
management. In 2004–2005, pursued his Masters of
Business Administration at the American University of
Beirut (AUB), researching primarily issues relating to
change management and corporate social responsibility under
the supervision of Dr. Dima Jamali, then joined a leading
international financial institution as a regional Management
Associate, while maintaining links with AUB and working
on several research based projects.
Dima Jamali
Ramez Mirshak
mance Revisited’, The Academy of Management Review
16(4), 691–717) – have been adopted for this research and
their integration explored. Using this newly synthesized
framework, the research critically examines the CSR approach and philosophy of eight companies that are considered active in CSR in the Lebanese context. The
findings suggest the lack of a systematic, focused, and
institutionalized approach to CSR and that the understanding and practice of CSR in Lebanon are still grounded
in the context of philanthropic action. The findings are
qualified within the framework of existing contextual
realities and relevant implications drawn accordingly.
KEY WORDS: Corporate social responsibility (CSR),
theory and practice, developing countries, Lebanon
Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept
that has attracted worldwide attention and acquired a
new resonance in the global economy. Heightened
interest in CSR in recent years has stemmed from
the advent of globalization and international trade,
which have reflected in increased business complexity and new demands for enhanced transparency
and corporate citizenship. Moreover, while
governments have traditionally assumed sole
responsibility for the improvement of the living
conditions of the population, society’s needs have
exceeded the capabilities of governments to fulfill
them. In this context, the spotlight is increasingly
turning to focus on the role of business in society
and progressive companies are seeking to differentiate themselves through engagement in CSR.
The World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) defines CSR as ‘‘the
commitment of business to contribute to sustainable
244
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
economic development, working with employees,
their families and the local communities’’ (WBCSD,
2001). Hence the fundamental idea of CSR is
that business corporations have an obligation to
work towards meeting the needs of a wider array
of stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995; Waddock
et al., 2002). More generally, CSR is a set of management practices that ensures the company maximizes the positive impacts of its operations on
society or ‘‘operating in a manner that meets and
even exceeds the legal, ethical, commercial and
public expectations that society has of business’’
(BSR, 2001).
At the core of the CSR debate is the idea that
corporations should transition from a state of mere
compliance to a mode of engagement, from harm
minimization to value creation (Luetkenhorst, 2004;
Novak, 1996). This view has become central to the
CSR discourse. Also implied in the debate is the idea
that the private sector is the dominant engine of
growth – the principle creator of value and managerial
resources – and that it has an obligation to contribute
to economic growth and opportunity – equitable and
sustainable. CSR is therefore founded on a stronger
recognition of the role of business as an active partner
in a world of scarcity and dwindling resources.
But while increasing attention has been accorded
in recent years to CSR, as a postulate for ethical and
responsible behavior in business, very little is known
of the practice of CSR in developing countries.
Various scholars have indeed highlighted the Western centric nature of academic publication on the
topic. Belal (2001) notes for example that most of
the CSR studies conducted so far have been in the
context of developed countries such as Western
Europe, the U.S.A., and Australia and that we still
know too little about practices in ex-colonial,
smaller, and emerging countries. He highlights the
need for more CSR research in developing country
contexts given the valuable insights it can offer to the
jaded palettes of Western scholars.
There is thus a certain level of lingering academic
curiosity about diverging CSR understanding and
practice in light of vastly different economic, social,
and cultural conditions. In his exploration of the
institutional determinants of social responsibility,
Jones (1999) for example highlights the importance
of the national socio-cultural environment and
the level of national economic development as
important variables influencing CSR understanding
and practice. In this context, there is value added in
exploring CSR conceptions and perceptions in a
developing country context, and gauging the extent
to which CSR practice in developing countries has
matured beyond the boundaries of compliance and
public relations.
Accordingly, after providing a literature overview
of CSR studies in different contexts, this research
makes the case for adopting two well grounded CSR
conceptualizations, one by Carroll (1979) and the
other by Wood (1991) and explores how they can be
combined. Using this newly synthesized framework,
the paper examines empirically the CSR performance of select companies operating in Lebanon,
documenting their views and practice of CSR. In
the process, the paper also sheds light on practical
considerations, which have not been accorded enough attention in the CSR literature, pertaining for
example to the housing of CSR within corporate
structures, the governance choices in the context of
CSR, and the challenges faced in the pursuit of CSR
in a developing country context.
Literature overview
Corporate Social Responsibility principles have long
been part of enlightened business practice, but the
concept has witnessed an astounding ascendancy and
resurgence in recent years. Nevertheless, the concept
has not been uniformly embraced, with lingering
diverging views about its potential usefulness and
applicability. To skeptics, CSR is antithetical to
sound business practice and serves to dilute its focus
on wealth creation (Clement-Jones, 2005; Murray,
2005). Proponents however characterize CSR as
essential for successful business operations and as an
opportunity for business to look beyond narrow
economic returns and take the wider social concern
into consideration (Jackson and Nelson, 2004; Rudolph, 2005).
While views about CSR continue to oscillate
between these two extremes, a growing body of
evidence seems to suggest that cultural differences
affect CSR dynamics with companies in different
contexts exhibiting varied responses to this change in
the business conduct landscape. A study by Abreu
et al. (2005) on the CSR-related experience and
Corporate Social Responsibility
practice of Portuguese companies notes cultural
differences, pointing to the need for more research
on the socio-cultural determinants of CSR in the
newly expanded European Community. Research
by Papasolomou-Doukadis et al. (2005) on the CSR
approach of Cypriot businesses suggests the importance of managerial initiative, as well as financial gain
as a key motive for the adoption of CSR by the
business sector in Cyprus for tax deduction purposes.
Research by Juholin (2004) in the Finnish context
similarly suggests the importance of top management
initiative, the limited attention accorded to philanthropy, and long-term profitability as the prominent
driving force behind CSR in Finland.
Research by Fulop et al. (2000) in the Hungarian
context notes differences between the CSR orientation of large and small firms, with more accentuated attention to issues of profitability among
managers of smaller firms. A study by Tencati et al.
(2004) shows a positive attitude towards CSR on the
part of Italian companies and the lack of public
support and publicity on CSR as the main reported
obstacles. Another study by Longo et al. (2005) in
the Italian context suggests that the majority (60%)
of companies can be considered as socially responsible using a stakeholder approach, noting obstacles
relating to time and cost constraints. A similar study
by Uhlaner et al. (2004) suggests the usefulness of a
mix of CSR perspectives (economic benefits,
conformance to legal and ethical expectations, and
philanthropic/community involvement) as helpful
in explaining variations in CSR orientations
amongst a sample of Dutch family firms. A study in
the Spanish context similarly shows variation among
firms, with one cluster adhering to a philanthropic
conception of responsibility (opting to maintain social involvement even as it entails net costs to the
company) and another adhering to a pure profit
maximization view (de la Cruz Deniz Deniz and
Cabrera Suarez, 2005).
Aside from cross-cultural differences, it is interesting to note the variety of methodologies adopted
when examining CSR empirically. Some studies
considered CSR to entail ethical responsibility,
looking at philanthropic responsibility as an optional
add-on (Longo et al., 2005). Other studies have
made a distinction between CSR as simple legal
compliance Vs CSR as conducting business with a
high regard for morality (Juholin, 2004). Some
245
studies have referred to various types of CSR –
economic, legal, ethical, philanthropic (Uhlaner
et al., 2004); others have utilized a stakeholder
approach, examining the CSR obligations and
contributions of firms vis-a-vis an array of key
stakeholders (Longo et al., 2005); while others have
made distinctions between classical, socio-economic,
philanthropic, and modern views of CSR (de la
Cruz Deniz Deniz and Cabrera Suarez, 2005; Quazi
and O’Brien, 2000).
This variation stems in part from the lingering
confusion as to what CSR precisely entails. Two
major camps in the CSR debate can be delineated.
The first camp believes rather firmly that a corporation is a legal construct and has only the two
responsibilities bestowed by the law creating it,
namely making money for owners and obeying
relevant rules (Greenfield, 2004). Another group
believes that corporations act intentionally via the
intentional actions of their members and hence bear
the duties and obligations of any good person or
citizen, but on a corporate scale (Hancock, 2005;
Goodpaster and Matthews, 2003; Pettit, 2005). The
first view translates into a narrow conception of
corporate responsibility as simply entailing economic
and legal responsibilities, while the second translates
into a broader conception of CSR entailing a wider
range of economic, legal, ethical, moral, and philanthropic responsibilities.
The narrow vision of responsibility of the first
camp is closely associated with the classical perspective, suggesting that the main function of business is to provide goods and services that lead to the
maximization of profit within the framework of legal
requirements (de la Cruz Deniz Deniz and Cabrera
Suarez, 2005; Quazi and O’Brien, 2000). The focus
here is on the economic and legal responsibilities of
business. The broader view of responsibility associated with the second camp translates into attempts at
meeting a wider spectrum of expectations, as in
protecting the environment, developing the community, conserving resources, and philanthropic
giving (de la Cruz Deniz Deniz and Cabrera Suarez,
2005; Quazi and O’Brien, 2000). From this perspective, business like ordinary persons or citizens, is
expected to assume responsibility and conform to
the principles of morality, accountability, and
integrity with a much wider scope for potential
contributions and interventions.
246
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
That the corporate should be held responsible has
been nicely argued by Pettit (2005). In his words,
‘‘by incorporating with one another, human beings
can have effects such that it is difficult to find them
individually responsible...and so there will be a
serious deficit in the allocation of responsibility,
unless we are willing to assign responsibility to the
corporate(s) that such agents constitute.’’ The
broader conception of responsibility associated with
this view is certainly more commensurate with the
prominence of the modern corporation as a vital
center of power and decision-making. It is also
consistent with the earliest conceptions of responsibility articulated by early scholars including McGuire (1963) and Davis (1973), who insisted that the
firm has obligations that extend beyond narrow
economic and legal requirements. Moreover, from
an iron law of responsibility perspective, it is clear
that modern corporations have to assume responsibilities that extend beyond mission fulfillment within
the boundaries of legal compliance, with visible
repercussions for the firm when philanthropic and
especially ethical responsibilities are not attended to.
In view of the above, and with the aim of
adopting a clear and justified methodology that is
consistent with the broader more progressive conception of responsibility, this research has opted to
capitalize on two robust CSR conceptualizations
that are well grounded in the literature. The first is
Carroll (1979) four-part definition of CSR that was
embedded into a conceptual model of corporate
social performance (CSP). The other is the CSP
model by Wood (1991), which placed CSR into a
comprehensive framework, emphasizing principles
guiding responsibility behavior, processes of
responsiveness and outcomes of performance. The
next section will shed briefly the light on those two
conceptualizations respectively, given their importance in guiding the empirical component of this
research. The possible integration of the two models
is also probed and discussed.
Theoretical framework
Carroll’s 1979 conceptualization
In 1979, Carroll proposed a four-part definition of
CSR that was embedded in a conceptual model of
CSP. In this model, Carroll (1979) differentiated
between four types of corporate social responsibilities: economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary. He
also presented the argument that firms wishing to
effectively engage in CSP needed to have (a) a basic
definition of CSR; (b) an understanding of the issues
for which a social responsibility existed; and (c) a
specification of the philosophy of responsiveness to
the issues.
A basic starting point for effective CSP from this
perspective is the assimilation and adoption of the
basic types of CSR. The first category that Carroll
(1979) delineated is a responsibility that is economic
in nature, entailing for example providing a return
on investment to owners and shareholders; creating
jobs and fair pay for workers; discovering new resources; promoting technological advancement,
innovation, and the creation of new products and
services. Business from this perspective is the basic
economic unit in society and all its other roles are
predicated on this fundamental assumption (Carroll,
1979).
The legal responsibility is the second part of the
definition and entails expectations of legal compliance and playing by the ‘‘rules of the game.’’
From this perspective, society expects business to
fulfill its economic mission within the framework
of legal requirements. But while regulations may
successfully coerce firms to respond to an issue, it
is difficult to ensure that they are applied equitably
(Pratima, 2002). Moreover, regulations are reactive
in nature, leaving little opportunity for firms to be
proactive. Laws therefore circumscribe the limits
of tolerable behavior, but they neither define
ethics nor do they ‘‘legislate morality’’ (Solomon,
1994).
In essence, ethical responsibility overcomes the
limitation of law by creating an ethics ethos that
companies can live by (Solomon, 1994). It portrays
business as being moral, and doing what is right, just,
and fair. Therefore, ethical responsibility encompasses activities that are not necessarily codified into
law, but nevertheless are expected of business by
societal members such as respecting people, avoiding
social harm, and preventing social injury. Such
responsibility is mainly rooted in religious convictions, humane principles, and human rights commitments (Lantos, 2001). However, one limitation
to this type of responsibility is its blurry definition
Corporate Social Responsibility
and the consequent difficulty for business to concretely deal with it (Carroll, 1979).
The final type of responsibility is where firms
have the widest scope of discretionary judgment and
choice, in terms of deciding on specific activities or
philanthropic contributions that are aimed at giving
back to society. The roots of this type of responsibility lie in the belief that business and society are
intertwined in an organic way (Frederick, 1994).
Examples of such activities might include philanthropic contributions, conducting in-house training
programs for drug abusers, or attempts at increasing
literacy rates (Carroll, 1979). This type of responsibility is the most controversial of all since its limits
are broad and its implications could conflict with the
economic and profit-making orientation of business
firms.
In 1991, Carroll revisited his four-part definition
of CSR and organized the notion of multiple corporate social responsibilities in a pyramid construct
(Figure 1). In this pyramid, economic responsibility
is the basic foundation and discretionary or volitional
is the apex. This revisited conceptualization implies
that the four responsibilities are aggregative in the
sense that corporations that want to be ethical for
example must be economically and legally responsible. From this perspective, economic and legal
responsibilities are socially required, ethical responsibility is socially expected, while philanthropy is
socially desired (Windsor, 2001) and each of these
responsibilities comprises a component of the total
social responsibility of a firm.
The other components of the CSP model originally proposed by Carroll (1979) entailed an identification of the social issues that business must
address and a specification of the philosophy of
responsiveness to the issues. Recognizing that social
Total Responsibility
Discretionary Responsibility
Ethical Responsibility
Legal Responsibility
Economic Responsibility
Figure 1. A hierarchy of Corporate Social Responsibilities (Carroll, 1991).
247
issues may change over time depending on the
industry in which firms exist, an effective responsibility performance entails a systematic attempt at
fleshing out the social issues that are of most interest
to the firm. A strategy or mode of responsiveness
must also be identified, although this component
was vaguely addressed in Carroll’s (1979) conceptualization, with a simple differentiation between a
reactive, defensive, accommodative or proactive
responsiveness strategy.
Wood 1991 conceptualization
In 1991, Wood revisited the CSP model and
introduced important refinements by going beyond
an identification of the different types of responsibilities to examine issues relating to the principles
motivating responsible behavior, the processes of
responsiveness and the outcomes of performance.
Her refined postulation therefore placed CSR into a
broader context than just a stand-alone definition,
and conceptualized CSP as the product of a business
firm’s particular configuration of principles of social
responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, as
well as observable outcomes as they relate to the
firm’s societal relationships (Table I).
The model offered by Wood (1991) constitutes a
significant advance in CSR research. A researcher
using the model would first consider the principles
that motivate a firm’s social responsibility actions at
three levels of analysis: institutional, organizational,
TABLE I
The Corporate Social Performance model
(Wood, 1991)
Principles of corporate social responsibility
Institutional principle: legitimacy
Organizational principle: public responsibility
Individual principle: managerial discretion
Processes of corporate social responsiveness
Environmental assessment
Stakeholder management
Issues management
Outcomes of corporate behavior
Social impacts
Social programs
Social policies
248
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
and individual. Therefore, the motivation for a
firm’s social responsibility actions may stem from the
principle of legitimacy (institutional level), i.e., from
a desire to maintain credibility and legitimacy as a
responsible societal actor in a shared environment.
Alternatively, the motivation could stem from an
organizational sense of public responsibility, particularly for outcomes related to the firm’s primary and
secondary areas of involvement. Finally, the motivation could stem from the choices of individual
managers and their personal responsibility preferences and inclinations. There is also room for interactivity among two or more of these principles in
motivating CSP.
Responsiveness according to Wood (1991) constitutes an action dimension that is needed to complement the normative and motivational component
of social responsibility. It is conceptualized as comprising three facets – environmental assessment,
stakeholder management, and issues management,
which are effectively interlocked. Responsiveness is
rooted in knowledge about the external environment and in rigorous environmental scanning/analysis. This knowledge could then be used to devise
strategies for adapting to the environment or
conversely changing it. Stakeholder management is
another tenet of responsiveness and can be investigated by examining particular kinds of stakeholder
management devices (e.g., employee newsletters,
public affairs officials, and corporate social reporting). Issues management on the other hand entails an
investigation of the firm’s approach to devising and
monitoring responses to social issues.
The outcomes of corporate behavior are in turn of
direct and obvious interest in the assessment of CSP.
According to Wood’s CSP model, outcomes are
divided into three types: the social impacts of corporate behavior, the programs companies use to
implement responsibility and the policies developed
by companies to handle social issues and stakeholder
interests. Whether corporate behavior is having
positive or negative impact should objectively be
assessed (positive impact as in the provision of jobs,
the creation of wealth or technological innovation
and negative impact as in toxic wastes or illegal
payments to politicians). The nature of programs
selected for investment of resources to achieve specific ends is also important as is the extent of the
integration of social issues and impacts within the
body of company policy.
Integration of the two models
The two models of Carroll (1979) and Wood (1991)
are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. As illustrated in Table II, the two models can
be effectively reconciled and integrated. Carroll’s
categories of CSR can be viewed as the domains
within which the CSR principles, processes, and
outcomes are enacted. Wood’s (1991) model can in
fact be considered as an extension of Carroll’s con-
TABLE II
An integration of the two models
Domains
Cell 1: Economic
Cell 2: Legal
Cell 3: Ethical
Cell 4: Discretionary
CSR principles
Processes of responsiveness
Outcomes of corporate behavior
Social legitimacy
Public responsibility
Managerial discretion
Social legitimacy
Public pesponsibility
Managerial discretion
Social legitimacy
Public responsibility
Managerial discretion
Social legitimacy
Public responsibility
Managerial discretion
Environmental assessment
Stakeholder management
Issues management
Environmental assessment
Stakeholder management
Issues management
Environmental assessment
Stakeholder management
Issues management
Environmental assessment
Stakeholder management
Issues management
Social
Social
Social
Social
Social
Social
Social
Social
Social
Social
Social
Social
impacts
programs
policies
impacts
programs
policies
impacts
programs
policies
impacts
programs
policies
Corporate Social Responsibility
tribution in the sense that it directs attention to the
importance of considering within each domain of
responsibility – be it economic, legal ethical or discretionary – the principles motivating this particular
responsibility, the specific processes of responsiveness and the outcomes of corporate social behavior.
A comprehensive and integrated CSR approach
would ideally entail according attention to all three
aspects of CSP (principles, processes, and outcomes),
across all domains of the firm’s operations (economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary). In practice,
however, firms may exhibit incomplete adherence
to social responsibility principles and sketchy processes and outputs across various domains. Alternatively, some firms may opt to prioritize their
responsibilities and fully concentrate on the fulfillment of one or two types of responsibility at the
expense of others, but this runs at the risk of being
judged as irresponsible, particularly when the focus is
only on the traditional economic domain.
As far as the principles are concerned, some
firms may be motivated by a combination of all
three principles in one or more domains. It is
possible to argue, along the same lines as Wood
(1991), that the most proactive firms are motivated
by all three principles across all domains while
reactive firms are concerned with fewer principles
and fewer domains. These principles may also
operate independently of each other in one or
more domain. Some managers may for example
seek to maximize their personal discretion in the
pursuit of philanthropic CSR, without regard to
institutional legitimacy or public responsibility
(Wood, 1991). But it is possible to reason that the
managerial discretion principle, while potentially
relevant in each domain, is in fact most salient in
the discretionary domain, in the sense that there
exists most room here for managers to maneuver
and exercise their personal preferences in the
selection of CSR programs and interventions.
In a similar vein, responsiveness strategies need to
be ideally devised across all domains of responsibility
(economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary). As
articulated by Wood (1991), responsiveness provides
an action complement or counterpoint to the principled reflection of social responsibility. It is clear
that managers need to monitor changing realities,
manage relationships with specific stakeholder
groups and devise strategies for dealing with
249
emerging issues in each responsibility domain
respectively. However, some firms may exhibit
better responsiveness processes in some domains
than in others, but it is difficult to imagine a firm not
according due diligence to responsiveness issues
across various domains in this changing and
increasingly dynamic environment.
Similarly, companies need to track their policies,
programs, and outputs across all domains of
responsibility. The social impacts of business
behavior are visible across the four domains of
responsibility, whether in the provision of jobs,
goods, and services (economic), payment of taxes
(legal), grease payments to bureaucrats and politicians (ethical) or social charitable contributions
(discretionary). Aside from impacts, it is also
important to monitor the nature of programs selected for investment across domains as well as the
integration of social issues within the body of
company policy. It is clear that the alignment of
principles, processes, and outcomes in each respective domain is a challenge, but it is effective integration across the four domains that is most
challenging and that needs to be nurtured and refined over time.
A researcher making use of Table II can
therefore proceed through a systematic assessment
of CSP. The first step would be to identify the
specific type of responsibility in question. Once
this is determined, the specific configuration of
principles of CSR, processes of responsiveness, and
outcomes of corporate behavior within that particular domain can be delineated or assessed. Not
only does this approach allow a mapping of the
various dimensions of social performance, but it
also permits to undertake a systematic assessment,
avoiding potential confusion as to the nature of
responsibility being addressed and the facets of
social performance being investigated. Other domains can also be sequentially examined, resulting
in a gradual comprehensive and rounded assessment of CSP.
Guided by this approach, the empirical component of this research proceeded to investigate the
CSP of Lebanese operating firms that enjoy a reputation as being active in CSR. The research
methodology capitalized on in-depth interviews
with eight companies that are considered active in
CSR in the Lebanese context. The next section
250
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
provides relevant information about the Lebanese
socio-economic environment to allow an interpretation of the findings within their proper contextual
framework. The research methodology is then presented, followed by the main findings and conclusions.
Background information about Lebanon
Lebanon is a small country located along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean sea bounded on the
north and east by Syria and on the south by Israel
(Figure 2), with a total area of 10,452 square
kilometers and a population of around 4 million
inhabitants. Lebanon qualifies as a parliamentary
republic with a centralized, multi-religious, and
multiparty government. Its quasi-democratic political system is based on power-sharing between the
country’s confessional groups. The grouping of
people by religion plays a critical role in Lebanon’s
political and social life and has given rise to Lebanon’s most persistent and bitter conflicts.
Since its independence from French rule in 1943,
Lebanon has been characterized by large public
freedoms, which have given it a distinctive position
that made it a haven in the region, a place where
different ideas, currents, and trends can thrive and
interact. Peaceful multicultural coexistence, however, collapsed into violent warfare in the years
1975–1989. The conclusion of the Taef Accord of
1989 led to the reinstatement of security. However,
the war, which Lebanon endured, interrupted the
normal course of development, leading to an overall
deterioration in political, economic, and social
conditions.
Lebanon is now in the phase of reconstitution of
its political, economic, and social structures and
institutions. The first phase of reconstruction and
development, namely the rehabilitation of the
physical infrastructure has been completed and has
largely re-established normal operations of public
services. Daunting challenges however lie ahead
particularly in terms of economic recovery. Post-war
governments have pursued monetary stabilization
policies aiming at curbing inflation rates and
regaining confidence in the national currency. Recent governments have had to go further in their
stabilization policy to finance the growing deficit in
the budget.
The main economic challenge confronted by
successive governments in recent years has indeed
been large recurring budget deficits, averaging more
than 18% of estimated GDP over 1997–2003. Efforts
to restore fiscal balance have generally been undermined by the high costs and expenditures allocated
for sustaining the post-war reconstruction program.
Fiscal issues have therefore tended to dominate
policy-making in the post-war years, limiting the
government’s scope to adopt more growth-orientated measures, and accentuating the need for greater
reliance on the private sector to promote growth,
generate employment, and improve standards of
living.
Figure 2. Lebanon’s location in the middle east.
Corporate Social Responsibility
While the Lebanese private sector has traditionally
been the dominant engine of growth in a relatively
open and liberal economic environment, its resilience is now being invoked to lead the reemergence
of Lebanon as a preeminent regional hub for trade
and services. The private sector is rising to the
challenge, but the constraints imposed by fiscal
macro-economic realities are real and the scope for
private sector maneuver seems limited at best. The
CSR initiatives – which will be explored in the
following sections – therefore need to be viewed
within this contextual framework of economic turmoil and uncertainty.
Research methodology
The empirical section of this paper comprised a
primary research, which was conducted in the
Lebanese context during the months of April and
May 2005. The sample consisted of eight companies operating in Lebanon that were selected based
on their level of CSR activity. Some of the companies were identified through their previous
involvement in a United Nations Volunteers
(UNV) Program, which represented a first attempt
251
in 2002 to document information on business
community practices in the Lebanese context.
Other companies were selected because of the
visibility of their CSR programs. For example, the
two banks that participated in this study are renowned in Lebanon for their community and
philanthropic contributions.
The selected companies spanned different industries (Table III). The sample therefore comprised
two banks, one insurance company, one hotel, one
manufacturer of hygienic products, one bottler of
refreshment brands, one food processor, and one IT
company. It is interesting to note that four of the
companies are subsidiaries of international corporations (Microsoft, Tetra Pak, SMLC, and Le Vendome). The remaining four companies (or otherwise
half the sample) are local in origin and scope. Such
sample composition is potentially interesting,
allowing a comparison of the extent to which the
CSR practices of these local companies differ from
their international counterparts operating in Lebanon, as well as the extent to which local subsidiaries
have been influenced by the philosophy and CSR
approach of their mother firms. Comparisons along
these lines can indeed potentially enrich the discussion (Table III).
TABLE III
Sample profile
Company name
Microsoft
Byblos Bank
SNA
Sanita
SMLC
Tetra Pak
Audi Bank
Le Vendome
Full details
Line of business
Microsoft-Beirut office, a subsidiary
of Microsoft International
A member of the Byblos Bank
Group, a leading Lebanese financial
institution
Societe Nationale d’Assurances,
a leading Lebanese insurance firm
Member of Indevco for Development,
a national conglomerate
Societe Moderne Libanaise
Pour Le Commerce, a Pepsi Franchise
Tetra Pak Lebanon, a subsidiary
of Tetra Pak international
A member of the Audi Group,
a leading Lebanese financial firm
A member of the Intercontinental
Hotel Chain
Provider of software, services, and IT for personal and
business computing.
Retail and commercial banking, and financial markets.
Life and non-life insurance, reinsurance,
and retirement insurance.
Manufacturer of disposable hygienic products for
retail and industrial markets.
Bottler of refreshment brands: Pepsi, Mirinda, 7UP,
Mountain Dew, and Tropicana.
Provider of integrated processing, packaging, and
distribution lines for food manufacturing.
Banking, financial, investment, and insurance group.
A boutique hotel combining Lebanese hospitality
with French standards.
252
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
The companies were contacted first by phone,
and then a formal introductory letter highlighting
the aims of the research and its queries was sent to
the companies. An in-depth interview was then
scheduled and conducted by the authors with the
person(s) responsible for CSR. The interviewees
were all managers, occupying top managerial positions in their respective organizations (e.g., heads of
public relations/communications units; marketing
and communications managers and development
regional directors). The interviews consumed on
average two hours, were conducted in English, taperecorded and transcribed.
The research made use of semi-structured interviews whereby an interview guide was prepared
outlining topics/issues to be covered, but also leaving the interviewer to decide on the sequence/
wording of questions in the course of the interview.
As illustrated in Table IV, the interview guide was
designed to tackle the basic CSP dimensions derived
from both Carroll (1979) and Wood (1991) frameworks. Semi-structured interviews have been described as particularly suited for interviewing
professionals who cannot be reached on many separate occasions, and as a midway between the extremes of formality/informality, or standardization/
un-standardization (Bernard, 2000), thus allowing
the reconciliation of systematic data collection with
flexibility.
Research findings
Aggregate findings for the entire sample are presented in a systematic manner pertaining to the
dimensions outlined in Table IV. Content analysis
allowed the detection of a general level of conformity/consistency in answers, while divergences have
also been recorded and dwelled upon. The following
sections are therefore not intended to provide an
exhaustive overview of each company’s CSR practices, but rather to reflect critically on the interviews
conducted in relation to the basic CSP dimensions
outlined in Table IV.
Type of CSR/CSR domain
Without exception, all the executives interviewed
adhered to a voluntary action or philanthropic type
conception of CSR. When asked about the type of
CSR performed, all companies consistently referred
to philanthropic type activities and programs, with
no mention of the importance of ethical conduct,
legal compliance, or economic viability. The
understanding of CSR in the Lebanese context thus
seems anchored in the context of voluntary action,
with the economic, legal, and ethical dimensions
assumed as taken for granted. Indeed a consistent
theme emerged, emphasizing the organic link between an organization and its local environment and
the perceived need for social interventions that
would benefit society generally and local stakeholders more specifically.
There was thus an overall consensus on the
importance of the community as a critically important stakeholder, with a parallel emphasis on the
discretionary CSR domain. As articulated by one of
the respondents ‘‘A company needs to be in tune with
the societies and communities in which it makes a living;
this implies going beyond economic, legal and ethical
responsibility and aligning itself with the community in
which it operates’’ (Manager, Microsoft). A similar
conception of CSR was expressed by one of the
banks, highlighting that ‘‘We realize that we operate
within a bounded space and that giving back to the com-
TABLE IV
Dimensions of CSP examined
Overall dimension
Type of CSR
CSR principles
Responsiveness strategies
Outcomes of behavior
Detailed components
Economic/legal/ethical/discretionary
Institutional/organizational/individual
Environmental assessment/stakeholder management/issues management
Social impacts/social programs/social policies
Corporate Social Responsibility
munity is paramount; investing in the community implies a
better environment to conduct our business’’ (Manager,
Byblos). Another bank manager articulated a similar
view, noting that ‘‘We hold strongly to our civic
responsibility and we strive to make a visible difference in
our community’’ (Manager, Audi).
Although a sense of ethical obligation/responsibility was implicitly detected, the type of CSR
explicitly referred to and emphasized invariably took
the form of discretionary type activity. CSR in the
Lebanese context is therefore largely understood to
comprise the philanthropic contributions that business firms make over and above their mainstream
activities. Nevertheless, the everyday activity of
business has a much more profound social impact
than its small voluntary community contributions,
however valuable. The realization of this profound
connection between the different facets of everyday
activity of companies (e.g., economic, legal) and the
well-being of society seems to be less than fully
appreciated in the Lebanese context. As articulated
by Bush (2005), CSR is not just about philanthropic/charitable giving; rather it is the whole way
in which a company interacts with society.
Principles of CSR
The principles that were most frequently mentioned
by the interviewed executives as motivating the
responsibility behavior of the firm were the principle
of legitimacy and the principle of managerial discretion. With no exception, all executives mentioned the interdependence of social institutions and
the obligation of firms to act responsibly vis-a-vis
their local stakeholders. All the firms included in the
sample therefore expressed genuine concern with
maintaining legitimacy and credibility in a shared
environment, and providing their share of reciprocal
benefits, resources, and investments. Responsibility
is thus conceived as a license for continued operation
and appreciation by society. As mentioned by one of
the respondents ‘‘CSR earns us our license to operate, by
allowing us to meet societal needs and expectations’’
(Manager, SNA).
The other frequently mentioned principle was the
principle of managerial discretion. The four local
companies mentioned in this respect that they started
to perform CSR activities since their inception, as
253
CSR was a core value of the founder (i.e., Byblos
Bank, SNA, Sanita, Audi Bank). As articulated by
one bank manager ‘‘Our bank, which has been in
business for over fifty years, has always helped the community by giving donations, thanks to the vision of our
chairman, Mr. Francois Bassil, who strongly believes in the
social role of corporations’’ (Manager, Byblos). Another
manager expressed the view ‘‘Exactly ten years after its
inception in 1963, SNA started its social work under the
support and supervision of its founder Mr. Jean Chidiac
and his progressive views about the role of business in
society’’ (Manager, SNA).
The CSR interventions of the subsidiaries of
international companies on the other hand are in
most cases based on the direction and guidance of
their mother companies (e.g., Microsoft, Tetra Pak,
Intercontinental). As articulated by one of the
managers ‘‘Microsoft initiated its CSR interventions in
Lebanon three years ago, and this was based on the
direction and guidance of Microsoft International, which
promotes community involvement in all locations in which
it operates’’ (Manager, Microsoft). Some of these
companies also mentioned the philosophy of founders as important in catalyzing their CSR orientation. As expressed by one manager ‘‘CSR at Tetra
Pak is rooted in the ethos of Ruben Rausing, the founder of
the company, who is always remembered for saying that a
good package should save more than its costs. We still live
by this ethos, which permeates our various CSR interventions’’ (Regional Manager, Tetra Pak). While
international companies seem to be transplanting
their CSR philosophy to the local contexts in which
they set shop, motivated by a combination of legitimacy and managerial discretion principles, the
motivation for local organizations seems grounded in
the context of voluntary initiative as a result of
enlightened entrepreneurship exercised by owners/
managers of the firm.
Only two of the firms interviewed made reference to the organizational public policy principle
and the importance of addressing problems and social issues related to their business operations and
interests. Microsoft-Beirut subsidiary office for
example explicitly mentioned its public responsibility to promote IT skills in Lebanon, and Tetra Pak
dwelled on the alignment of its CSR interventions
with its core business activities out of a sense of
public responsibility. It is worth noting here that the
two companies reporting a public responsibility in
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
254
line with the firm’s core interests/operations are
subsidiaries of international organizations (Table V).
Our observations hence lend tentative support to
the view expressed by Wood (1991) that the most
proactive firms tend to be motivated by all three
principles, responsive firms by legitimacy and public
responsibility, and reactive firms tend to be motivated by the principle of legitimacy only. While our
observations are mostly limited to the discretionary
CSR domain, which was the focus of attention of
our managers, they seem to suggest that the active
firms in our sample (whether qualified as proactive
or responsive) are motivated by a combination of at
least two principles, whereas legitimacy was the only
principle motivating the firm that was mostly oriented towards public relations (i.e., SMLC). These
observations deserve however to be revisited and
confirmed.
Corporate responsiveness strategies
With no exception, all the executives interviewed
emphasized the importance of continuous environmental scanning and monitoring, particularly in a volatile political context. Hence, all the executives
interviewed engage in regular environmental
scanning, monitoring the social, political, economic,
legal, and technological components of their environments. Several executives noted the volatility of
the political environment, and how political
turbulence often serves to divert their attention from
their social responsibility activities, reversing the order of priorities and the focus of attention. As mentioned by one manager ‘‘It is difficult to sustain the spark
for CSR when political developments in the region generally
and the country specifically often force you to turn attention to
issues of basic survival/viability’’ (Manager, Le Vendome).
Environmental scanning also plays a critical role in
determining the nature of CSR interventions for the
majority of the firms interviewed. Several firms indeed mentioned the need to regularly screen proposals and local social reports to anticipate and
interpret changes in the environment and decide on
the nature and scope of their social interventions.
One manager put it in these words ‘‘Social needs are
not static and for effective social programs/interventions, we
need to continuously educate ourselves on the changing
needs of our local communities’’ (Manager, Audi). Some
of the companies elicit the help of NGOs in the
environmental scanning process, ‘‘We rely on and
screen the proposals provided by NGOs and accept those
proposals that are most coherent with our values and overall
CSR orientation’’ (Manager, Byblos).
TABLE V
CSR motivation/principles
Company name
Microsoft
Byblos Bank
SNA
Sanita
SMLC
Tetra Pak
Audi Bank
Le Vendome
Motivation for embracing CSR
Corresponding principle
Supporting the local community
CSR aligned with core operations
Giving back to society
It is a core value of the founder
Giving back to society
It is a core value of the founder
Giving back to society
It is a core value of the founder
Supporting the local community
Giving back to society
CSR aligned with core business
It is a core value of the group
Giving back to society
It is a core value of the founder
Giving back to society
It is a core value of the group
Legitimacy (institutional)
Public responsibility (organizational)
Legitimacy (institutional)
Managerial discretion (individual)
Legitimacy (institutional)
Managerial discretion (individual)
Legitimacy (institutional)
Managerial discretion (individual)
Legitimacy (institutional)
Legitimacy (institutional)
Public responsibility (organizational)
Managerial discretion (individual)
Legitimacy principle (institutional)
Managerial discretion (individual)
Legitimacy principle (institutional)
Managerial discretion (individual)
Corporate Social Responsibility
The companies interviewed also mentioned the
use of different stakeholder management techniques in
managing their relationships with their internal and
external stakeholders. Internally, communication
with staff about CSR activities was consistently
emphasized, and this communication capitalized on
different media as the intranet, newsletters, bulletin
boards, and staff meetings. All the executives interviewed considered that communication with
employees about CSR is essential and has positive
spillover effects on their morale and motivation.
Companies made use of at least one medium (the
intranet) in communicating CSR information
internally, but the majority of the firms capitalized
on multiple forums (meetings, newsletters, and
intranet) for spreading the word and sharing
information.
Externally, several companies opted for partnering
arrangements in managing their relationships with
primary CSR stakeholders. Several managers
emphasized the importance of collaboration in the
context of CSR. As articulated by one of the
respondents ‘‘Collaboration allows the leveraging of
opportunities, resources, competencies and networks, supporting in turn the scaling-up of CSR activities while
broadening/deepening their impact’’ (Manager, Microsoft).
One manager underlined the importance of collaborative relationships in the pursuit of CSR in a
difficult context, ‘‘The need for collaboration is even
more acute in the context of developing countries in view of
the complexity and interdependence of challenges, defying
easy solutions and ready consensus and requiring more
innovative interactions/solutions’’ (Manager, Audi).
The understanding of partnerships, however,
differed between companies. Some of the companies
understood partnerships to mean the outsourcing of
CSR activities to local NGOs who have the
expertize, outreach, and capacity to implement social projects. As articulated by one of the managers,
‘‘Most of the donations of Microsoft are channeled to
reputable NGOs that handle our social projects as agreed
upon’’ (Manager, Microsoft). Another manager put it
this way ‘‘We do not have expertise in the management of
social projects, and we regularly turn to NGOs as our
natural partners in the pursuit of CSR’’ (Manager, Byblos). Accordingly, some companies maintained
minimal involvement in their CSR projects, opting
to channel direct resources to social organizations
that are experts in the particular issue at hand.
255
The remaining companies opted for more collaborative type projects, in which the NGO and the
business partner carry out CSR activities jointly; this
was the case for SNA and Tetra Pak. The two
companies explicitly mentioned their involvement
in the various phases of program design, planning,
and execution. A more sophisticated view highlighting the benefits of collaboration was expressed
by the Audi Bank manager, suggesting that ‘‘Through
collaborative projects we seek to engage new actors, mobilize
new resources, cross-fertilize ideas and consolidate efforts
between sectors to help deliver superior solutions that spread
the benefits of CSR more widely’’ (Manager, Audi).
Some of the companies expressed preference to
handle their CSR activities in house, including
Sanita and SMLC. The two companies preferred to
take charge of their social activities, with Sanita in
specific eliciting extensive corporate participation in
the planning, execution and evaluation of its social
projects. While both companies commended partnerships/collaborative efforts, they also appreciated
the flexibility wielded by in-house projects and the
satisfaction derived from their involvement in the
full project cycle from beginning to end. Moreover,
according to SMLC, in-house type projects allow for
tailoring the CSR activities to meet both organizational and community needs.
Most of the firms interviewed emphasized the
importance of stakeholder management in the planning stages of CSR interventions, but the majority
of the companies also failed to communicate the
outcomes and impacts of their CSR programs,
making it a point not to overexpose their activities
and preferring to practice the so called ‘‘silent CSR.’’
While few companies opted for press releases, or
depended on their non-profit partner to communicate
about their joint projects, the majority confessed
their attempts not to publicly advertise their philanthropic activities. The silent CSR seems predominantly widespread in Lebanon, possibly grounded
in the fear of stigmatizing CSR programs and
interventions as pure public relations campaigns.
While none of the companies had a dedicated
CSR official or CSR office, the majority of the
companies interviewed managed responsibility issues
through an ad hoc committee comprising marketing, public relations, and management representatives (e.g., SNA, Bank Audi). In other instances, the
marketing department assumed sole responsibility for
256
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
social issues management, in accordance to guidelines set by top management. Issues management thus
continues to be considered in the Lebanese context a
public corporate affairs function, with the marketing
or public relations department assuming responsibility for devising and monitoring the company’s
responses to social issues.
Outcomes of behavior
None of the companies interviewed measure
systematically the social impacts of their CSR
interventions and the findings suggest that corporate
social reporting has not picked up momentum in the
Lebanese context. The companies interviewed indeed seem to be according no attention to social
assessment devices, such as social indicators and the
social balance sheet. In discussions of CSR impacts,
none of the executives mentioned economic factors
like a company’s contribution to national productivity and levels of employment, nor indicators of
workplace practices (e.g., occupational health,
diversity) confirming their conceptualization of
CSR as purely philanthropic and discretionary.
It is also worth noting that despite extensive
descriptions of monetary contributions and various
community philanthropic programs, all companies
reported on their community investments, describing committed inputs (e.g., money, equipment) rather than outcomes. The nature of social programs
that were selected for investment was thus thoroughly addressed in the interviews and this is an area
where all the companies interviewed had interesting
information to share. The scope and spectrum of
social interventions was extremely wide and diversified, ranging from donations or programs involving
the orphans and handicapped, to art and cultural
development type activities, to sports and music
events, to educational and learning programs.
Table VI gives a flavor of the social programs mostly
emphasized by the companies interviewed.
It is interesting to note a level of coherence
between the social programs selected by each company, implying a level of directed investment of
resources to achieve specific socially desired ends.
This was particularly the case with Microsoft and
Tetra Pak, but most of the companies were able to
identify an overarching theme that integrates their
various social interventions. In discussing the motivation for pursuing specific themes, reference was
made to the CSR principles discussed earlier, which
in most cases included the social legitimacy principle
as well as managerial discretion principle, and in few
cases the public responsibility principle (e.g.,
Microsoft and Tetra Pak).
None of the companies interviewed had a clearly
articulated corporate social policy, fully institutionalized and operational. One company only (Audi
Bank) incorporated social issues within the body of
company policy through a clearly articulated set of
core values, comprising innovation, quality, heritage, human capital, transparency and social
responsibility, and a mission statement emphasizing
the importance of ‘‘good citizenship in the communities in which we live and work.’’ Moreover,
none of the companies had formally institutionalized
their social programs, given that CSR budgetary
allocations continue to be determined in all cases on
a yearly basis in relation to expected profits and at
the discretion of managers and marketing managers.
The institutionalization of these social programs is
the first step in translating them into more concrete
policy formulations.
Several companies seemed to be grappling with
the implications of CSR for their bottom line performance, with diverging views about net benefits or
costs. Microsoft for example insists that its motivation for pursuing CSR stems from a pure sense of
responsibility while admitting that ‘‘embracing CSR is
associated with business-related advantages including a
motivated workforce, improved relations with the government, and enhanced public image’’ (Manager, Microsoft).
A more enlightened view was expressed by another
manager, noting that ‘‘By proving that we are in tune
with the spirit of greater responsibility, we will enjoy the
competitive advantage that increased goodwill can bring,
which in the long run implies greater value creation for our
owners and shareholders’’ (Manager, SNA).
That CSR has any direct impact on profitability
however was questioned by another manager who
noted that ‘‘While the most frequently reported measure
of CSR effect has been financial performance in terms of
increased profitability, it is not evident from our practice
that this is an appropriate indicator of CSR effects’’
(Manager, Tetra Pak). The contrast between shortterm and long-term benefits was nicely captured by
another manager, noting that ‘‘CSR programs do not
Civic action theme revolving around
the arts and cultural development
National and patriotic theme touching
on economic, cultural and environmental issues
Sports and music events that are of interest to
the youth – the target market of the company
Supply chain development from the dairy
production to the dairy consumers
Community development and cultural
enrichment theme
SNA
Sanita
SMLC
Tetra Pak
Le Vendome
Charitable and in-kind donations theme
Educational and learning theme
Byblos Bank
Audi Bank
IT development theme
CSR theme
Microsoft
Company
Examples of social programs
-Creation of an electronic library in the children’s science museum in Beirut
-Sponsoring of a smart bus, that rotates in rural areas, providing IT training
-Donation of software to numerous NGOs and charitable organizations
-Sponsoring of the construction of various university campuses
-Provision of student scholarships based on financial need
-Introduction of mobile bus library that rotates in public schools
-In kind donations to public schools
-Sponsoring of cultural festivals
-Rehabilitation and face lifting of buildings in underprivileged areas
-Yearly sponsoring of an ‘‘International Sculpture Forum’’
-Distribution and planting of trees in a yearly environmental week
-Awareness campaign emphasizing coexistence in a pluralist context
-Employment of nationals only
-Cleaning campaigns at public beaches and creation of points of sale
-Sponsoring of the national football team for six consecutive years
-Cash donations to humanitarian, religious and charitable associations
-Education of school children about balanced nutrition and hygiene
-Free public school feeding programs, aimed at ensuring adequate milk intake
-Sponsoring of various banking conferences
-Sponsoring of major festivals
-Granting of school scholarships
-In kind donations to poor families
-In kind donations to elderly homes
-Donations to children cancer center
Social programs
TABLE VI
Corporate Social Responsibility
257
258
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
result in immediate short term payoffs to the firm. CSR
activities consume financial and non financial resources,
undermining opportunity for demonstrating favorable bottom line results. Benefits, however are likely to accrue over
time through accumulated goodwill or favorable responses
on the part of different stakeholders’’ (Manager, Audi).
Some managers, while not concerned with profitability per se, admitted their concern ‘‘with the
strong corporate branding and enhanced public image that
are by-products of CSR adoption’’ (Manager, Sanita).
Another manager expressed openly that CSR
activities are ‘‘excellent public relations and promotion
tools’’ (Manager, SMLC). The majority of respondents however considered CSR as ‘‘a long-term
investment with long-term benefits’’ (Manager, Audi) and
‘‘that the market somehow rewards responsible companies’’
(Manager, Tetra Pak). Overall, concerns with the
tangible benefits and payoffs of CSR have been
openly debated and brought to the fore, which in
most cases is counterbalanced in the Lebanese context by a strong sense of enlightened self-interest
amongst managers. The diversity of views about the
expected outcomes of social performance reflects in
turn the lingering lack of consensus in the literature
as to the actual impacts of CSR programs and how
to precisely approach the evaluation of social programs.
Discussion of findings
The findings suggest a number of issues that deserve
further discussion. In the first place, all the
companies interviewed adhered to a discretionary
conception of CSR implying an inclination among
all companies operating in Lebanon to conceive of
CSR as comprising the philanthropic contributions
that business firms make over and above their
mainstream activities. While this may be interpreted
as a natural evolution through Carroll’s (1991)
hierarchical CSR pyramid (Figure 1), a more plausible explanation pertains to a lack of appreciation of
the other domains of CSR and their critical
importance particularly in a developing country
context.
There is indeed a wide range of issues that are
deserving of attention in developing countries, in the
pursuit of CSR. These include economic factors like
a company’s contribution to national productivity,
or levels of employment. On the legal front, there is
room for contributions by companies in such areas as
enhancing capacity in detecting tax fraud, antitrust,
and the unveiling of corruption cases. On the
management front, companies can pay closer attention to human capital issues including workplace
safety, and employee satisfaction. Any of these issues
is a potentially viable CSR avenue, yet none of the
firms made an explicit reference to other than
philanthropic type activities/interventions.
It is worth noting here that while many companies
seem to be grappling with the bottom line implications of their CSR performance, none of the companies seem to be entertaining deeper fundamental
questions about whether and what kinds of responsibilities corporations should indeed assume. This
may either reflect that they have matured beyond
these basic philosophical questions or more plausibly
that many of the companies have uncritically opted
for the adoption of philanthropic CSR as the latest
hype of the business community. In contrast to
findings in the Finnish context (Juholin, 2004), our
findings suggest high level priority accorded to the
discretionary domain and voluntary philanthropic
action. This is potentially an interesting cultural
phenomenon that is deserving of further attention.
The motivational principles that were most salient
in the Lebanese context included the legitimacy and
managerial discretion principles with only two
companies making reference to the public responsibility principle. The findings suggest that all companies (both local and global) are motivated by a
sense of institutional necessity, and a desire to seek
social betterment in their local communities. This
finding is particularly interesting vis-a-vis multinational enterprises that seem to be exhibiting a
sense of responsibility in the host societies in which
they are setting shop. On the other hand, public
responsibility was mentioned by only two of the
global companies suggesting that local organizations
are still a long way from aligning their CSR interventions with their areas of core competence.
The motivation of local organizations also seems
to be grounded in most cases in the context of
voluntary initiative as a result of enlightened entrepreneurship exercised by owners or managers of the
enterprise. This is particularly true as all local companies referred to the philosophy and influence of
founders in catalyzing their CSR orientation. This
Corporate Social Responsibility
may suggest that in developing countries, in view of
weak regulatory capacities and nascent community
organization, founders assume direct responsibility as
moral actors steering the social responsibility choices
of their respective organizations. This finding is
certainly deserving of further attention, particularly
in regard to how these managers perceive choices
and constraints in their environments and the particular approaches adopted to circumvent constraints
and exercise choice.
The findings also suggest limited sophistication
regarding the corporate responsiveness strategies
adopted by the companies interviewed – both local
and global- with the majority of companies engaged
in environmental assessment and limited types of
stakeholder management. While all companies
communicate their CSR activities internally, external communication and systematic social reporting
are virtually non-existent. Partnerships with NGOs
are elicited in some cases as a pure outsourcing
exercise and issues management continues to be
considered by the majority of companies as a public
corporate affairs function. There is thus room and
indeed a need for these companies to revisit various
facets of their social responsiveness if CSR practice
in developing countries is to mature beyond the
boundaries of public relations.
A closer investigation of the outcomes of
responsibility behavior on the other hand suggests a
range of social programs in which the companies
interviewed have maintained involvement, ranging
from donations involving the orphans and
handicapped, to art and cultural development type
activities, to sports and music events, to educational
and learning programs. While the added value of
these programs is not to be undermined, the companies interviewed seem to be making no systematic
attempts at measuring the effectiveness and impact of
their interventions. The majority of these programs
are not institutionalized (qualifying as one shot
ventures or time-specific projects). Institutionalized
corporate social policies are also conspicuously absent suggesting that social issues and impacts have
not been seriously incorporated within the body of
company policy.
Several companies have admitted their concern
with the benefits and payoffs of their CSR programs,
yet direct short-term financial gain cannot be considered as the key driving force behind CSR in
259
Lebanon. This finding is slightly different from what
has been reported in the Cypriot and Finnish contexts (Juholin, 2004; Papasolomou-Doukadis et al.,
2005), suggesting a clear cultural dimension to CSR
that is worth exploring further. In other words,
profitability, while certainly important in the Lebanese context, may not qualify as the driving force for
CSR adoption as in Cyprus or Finland, particularly
that Lebanese firms do not benefit from tax deduction or other direct fiscal incentives when pursuing
CSR. Other shorter-term indirect benefits (e.g.,
branding, reputation, and public relations) seem
more salient in the Lebanese context, noting that
these are likely to reflect positively on bottom line
performance over time.
There is thus an overall focus on the discretionary
domain of responsibility and a selective adherence
within this domain to responsibility principles,
sketchy social responsiveness processes and programs, suggesting a still evolving amateur type stance
from corporate social responsibility rather than a
systematic, focused, and institutionalized approach.
If we consider CSR to be merely about convictions
and rhetoric, then some of the companies in our
sample may qualify as highly responsible. But CSR
must be evaluated at two levels – philosophic and
programmatic – and must be reflected in the goals,
values, mission, and policies of the firm, and permeate its processes of planning, decision-making,
communication, training, and rewards. As articulated by Makower (1994) ‘‘companies must understand that CSR programs are more than a means for
philanthropy. Through their policies and programs,
through the way they conduct daily business, these
forward thinking companies respect the tremendous
power business exercises in shaping our daily lives,
our communities and the world – both today and for
decades to come.’’
The modest approach detected however needs to
be qualified within the parameters of existing contextual realities, which in a post-war environment of
macro-economic austerity, often divert the attention
of firms to issues of basic survival and economic
viability. The limited sophistication of the social
responsibility discourse and the conspicuous absence
of CSR drivers/incentives in the Lebanese context
also merit attention. Many of the interviewed
executives noted in this respect the limited CSR
advocacy and awareness raising in Lebanon, and the
260
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
need for deliberate public action seeking to reshape
markets and strengthen the drivers of CSR practice
in the Lebanese context – through the provision of
financial incentives to companies that take the lead
in moving CSR forward and the stimulation of
consumer preferences in support of responsible
companies and products.
Concluding remarks
Corporate Social Responsibility represents the new
millennium challenge and a truly paradigmatic shift
for business corporations. There is increasing evidence that the CSR movement has picked up enough momentum to continue unabated into the
next century. But while there have been important
breakthroughs in the theoretical understanding of
CSR, empirical studies have generally remained
scant. Specifically, there is a scarcity of research
addressing the philosophy and practice of CSR in
developing countries. Building on Carroll’s (1979)
and Wood’s (1991) conceptualizations, this paper has
attempted to offer a preliminary assessment of the
CSP of select organizations operating in Lebanon
that are considered as active in CSR.
Our findings suggest that despite good awareness
and intentions, the CSR approach of the companies
in the sample remains amateurish and sketchy. This
applies to local organizations, as well as subsidiaries
of international organizations operating in Lebanon.
An assessment of the various CSP dimensions
(domains, principles, but especially processes and
outcomes) suggests that none of the companies
interviewed have developed clear targets, rigorous
metrics, and due diligence in their pursuit of CSR.
CSR is still largely conceived in the context of
voluntary philanthropic initiative as a result of
enlightened entrepreneurship exercised by owners of
the enterprise, with the corresponding responsiveness processes and outcomes modest at best.
These findings however need to be qualified
within the parameters of existing contextual realities.
The understanding and practice of CSR are indeed
likely to be molded by specific national and institutional realities, which may foster an environment
in which CSR is actively promoted, latently
sustained, or silently discouraged. The level of
societal development is also likely to influence the
prominence and sophistication of the CSR discourse
within a particular society. The constellation of these
contextual factors will either create an environment
in which CSR is structurally possible and normatively legitimate or alternatively a context in which
the pursuit of CSR is largely the result of personal
discretion, hindsight, and initiative.
The Lebanese post-war environment cannot be
characterized as the most fertile ground for CSR
initiatives to flourish. Existing fiscal imbalances are
bound to affect the outlook and orientation of private sector firms and divert attention to issues of
basic economic viability. When this is coupled with
weak drivers for CSR adoption on the supply and
demand side, limited CSR advocacy/awareness
raising, limited regulatory capacity, and nascent
community organizations, the motivation for CSR is
likely to be severely attuned and the private sector
cannot be expected to be effectively engaged in a
sustainable CSR drive.
Paradoxically, it is precisely in a developing
country context that the need for CSR type initiatives is most acute. The improvement of living
conditions is unlikely to materialize in the absence of
active private sector participation within the framework of responsible business practice. Developing
countries thus seem to be caught in a vicious circle,
where private sector CSR initiative is desperately
needed, yet effectively impeded by less than favorable contextual conditions. This is certainly the case
for the companies in this study, which have opted to
continue their CSR involvement despite prevailing
constraints.
Taking CSR a step forward in the context of
developing countries is thus likely to require more
systematic planning and stronger determination on
the part of the private sector to set this new trend in
motion. This must be founded in the realization that
embarking on a CSR program is a major commitment, one which may require changes in the way
responsibility management has traditionally been approached. It is also likely to require a concerted effort
and collaboration between the private sector, public
sector and NGO sector and the leveraging of the
strengths and resources of all partners. The effective
metamorphosis of CSR in developing countries beyond the boundaries of public relations is indeed
difficult to imagine in the absence of the synergies
resulting from such cross-sector collaboration.
Corporate Social Responsibility
References
Abreu, R., F. David and D. Crowther: 2005, ÔCorporate
Social Responsibility in Portugal Empirical Evidence
of Corporate BehaviorÕ, Corporate Governance 5(5), 3–
18.
Bernard, R.: 2000, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches (Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, London, New Delhi)
Belal, A.: 2001, ÔA Study of Corporate Social Disclosures
in BangladeshÕ, Managerial Auditing Journal 15(5), 274–
289.
Bush, G.: 2005, ÔCorporate Citizenship As Part of the
Business ModelÕ, in J. Hancock (ed.), Investing in
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Guide to Best Practice,
Business Planning and the UK’s Leading Companies
(Kogan Page, London), pp. 15–26.
Business for Social Responsibility: 2001, Introduction to
Corporate Social Responsibility. [Online] available:
http://www.bsr.org/bsrresources/WhitePapers_IssueArea.cfm.
Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ÔA Three-Dimensional Conceptual
Model of Corporate PerformanceÕ, The Academy of
Management Review 4(4), 497–505.
Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ÔThe Pyramid Of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of
Organizational StakeholdersÕ, Business Horizons 34, 39–
48.
Clarkson, M.: 1995, ÔA Stakeholder Framework For
Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social ResponsibilityÕ, The Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–
118.
Clement-Jones, T.: 2005, ÔBottom Line Issue Or Public
Relations Exercise?Õ, in J. Hancock (eds.), Investing in
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Guide to Best Practice,
Business Planning and the UK’s Leading Companies
(Kogan Page, London), pp. 5–13.
Davis, K.: 1973, ‘The Case For and Against Business
Assumption of Social Responsibility’, Academy of
Management Journal June, 312–322.
De la Crus Deniz Deniz, M. and K. Cabrera Suarez:
2005, ÔCorporate Social Responsibility and Family
Business in SpainÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 56, 27–41.
Frederick, W. C.: 1994, ÔFrom CSR1 to CSR2Õ, Business
and Society 33(2), 150–164.
Fulop, G., R. Hisrich and K. Szegedi: 2000, ÔBusiness
Ethics and Social Responsibility in Transition EconomiesÕ, Journal of Management Development 19(1), 5–
31.
Goodpaster, K. and J. Matthews: 2003, ‘Can A Corporation Have A Conscience?’ Harvard Business Review on
Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business School
Press: 131–155.
261
Greenfield, W. M.: 2004, ‘In the Name of Corporate
Social Responsibility’, Business Horizons January–February, 19–28.
Hancock, J.: 2005, ÔIntroduction: Why This Subject?
Why This Book?Õ, in J. Hancock (eds.), Investing in
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Guide to Best Practice,
Business Planning and the UK’s Leading Companies
(Kogan Page, London), pp. 1–4.
Jackson, I. and J. Nelson: 2004, ‘Values-Driven Performance: Seven Strategies For Delivering Profits With
Principles’, Ivey Business Journal 69(2) November/
December, 1–8.
Jones, M.: 1999, ÔThe Institutional Determinants of Social
ResponsibilityÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 20(2), 163–
179.
Juholin, E.: 2004, ÔFor Business Or The Good Of All? A
Finnish Approach To Corporate Social ResponsibilityÕ, Corporate Governance 4(3), 20–31.
Lantos, G. P.: 2001, ÔThe Boundaries of Strategic Corporate Social ResponsibilityÕ, Journal of Consumer
Marketing 18(7), 595–630.
Longo, M., M. Mura and A. Bonoli: 2005, ÔCorporate
Social Responsibility and Corporate Performance: The
Case of Italian SMEsÕ, Corporate Governance 5(4), 28–42.
Luetkenhorst, W.: 2004, ÔCorporate Social Responsibility
and the Development AgendaÕ, Intereconomics 39(3),
157–168.
Makower, J.: 1994, Beyond the Bottom Line (Simon and
Schuster, London)
McGuire, J.: 1963, Business and Society (McGraw Hill,
New York)
Murray, A.: 2005, ‘The Economy, Business: Will Social
Responsibility Harm Business?’ The Wall Street Journal
May 18, A2.
Novak, M.: 1996, Business as a Calling: Work and
the Examined Life (The Free Press, New York, NY)
Papasolomou-Doukakis, I., M. Krambia-Kapardis and M.
Katsioloudes: 2005, ÔCorporate Social Responsibility:
The Way Forward? Maybe NotÕ, European Business
Review 17(3), 263–279.
Pettit, P.: 2005, ‘Responsibility Incorporated’, Paper
presented at the Kadish Center for Morality, Law and
Public Affairs, Workshop in Law, Philosophy and
Political Theory, March 23, 2005.
Pratima, B.: 2002, ÔThe Corporate Challenges of Sustainable DevelopmentÕ, Academy of Management Executive 16(2), 122–132.
Quazi, A. and D. O’Brien: 2000, ÔAn Empirical Test of
a Cross-National Model of Corporate Social ResponsibilityÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 25, 33–51.
Rudolph, P. Letters To The Editor: 2005, ‘An Adam
Smith Look At Green Regulations’, The Wall Street
Journal June 6.
262
Dima Jamali and Ramez Mirshak
Solomon, R. C.: 1994, The New World of Business: Ethics
and Free Enterprise in the Global Nineties (Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers Inc, USA)
Tencati, A., F. Perrini and S. Pogutz: 2004, ÔNew Tools
To Foster Corporate Socially Responsible BehaviorÕ,
Journal of Business Ethics 53, 173–190.
Uhlaner, L., A. van Goor-Balk and E. Masurel: 2004,
ÔFamily Business and Corporate Social Responsibility
In A Sample of Dutch FirmsÕ, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development 11(2), 186–194.
Waddock, S., C. Bodwell and S. Graves: 2002,
ÔResponsibility: The New Business ImperativeÕ, The
Academy of Management Executive 16(2), 132–147.
Windsor, D.: 2001, ÔThe Future of Corporate Social
ResponsibilityÕ, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 9(3), 225–256.
Wood, D.: 1991, ÔCorporate Social Performance RevisitedÕ, The Academy of Management Review 16(4), 691–
717.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development:
2001, The Business Case for Sustainable Development:
Making a Difference Towards the Johannesburg
Summit 2002 and Beyond. [Online] available: http://
www.wbcsd.org.
D. Jamali and R. Mirshak
Olayan School of Business
American University of Beirut
Bliss Street, Beirut,
11-0236, Lebanon
E-mail: [email protected]