Is CSR an act of philanthropy or Bribery in disguise?

The entirety of CSR can be discerned from the three words contained within its title phrase: ‘corporate,’ ‘social,’ and ‘responsibility.’ Therefore, in broad terms, CSR covers the responsibilities corporations (or other for-profit organizations) have to the societies within which they are based and operate. The Public Relations handbook by Alison Theaker defines CSR as voluntary actions that business can take, over and above compliance with minimum legal requirements, to address both its own competitive interests and the interests of the wider society. More specifically, CSR involves a business identifying its stakeholder groups and incorporating their needs and values within the strategic and day-to-day decision-making process.
CSR can include embracing the issues of environmentalism, animal testing, human rights or other social or political concerns affected or perceived to be affected by an organisation’s policies.

(CSR) is a controversial subject that has been debated and written about by authors who argue that the whole issue is irrelevant to business (Freeman and Liedtka 1991), including those who see the relevance, but think it is a bad idea for business (Friedman), to the vast array of writers who think that CSR is just of strategic importance to business (Asongu). When considering CSR it is important to distinguish between corporate activities that are intended to contribute to the society and charitable acts or philanthropy. CSR does not mean a mere money donation within some charity actions, but rather a different style of doing business, an integrated style within the company culture. Many people assume, wrongly, that a company exists simply to make money. While this is an important result of a company’s existence, we have to go deeper and find the real reasons for our being. As we investigate this, we inevitably come to the conclusion that a group of people get together and exist as an institution that we call a company so that they are able to accomplish something collectively that they could not accomplish separately.
Therefore before claiming that CSR is mere window dressing one must know that CSR broadly represents the relationship between a company and the wider community within which the company operate. Businesses rely on the society within which they operate and could not exist or prosper in isolation. They need the infrastructure that society provides, its source of employees, not to mention its consumer base. Advocates of CSR believe that businesses, without exception, have an obligation to contribute as well as draw from the community, on which they rely so heavily. Therefore it can clearly be established that CSR is recognition of that inter-dependence and a means of delivering on that obligation, to the mutual benefit of businesses.

CSR is an argument of economic self-interest for a business. In today’s brand-driven markets, CSR is a means of matching corporate operations with stakeholder values and demands. All aspects of a company’s operations today feed into helping build the corporate brand. Brands today are one of the key focal points of corporate success. Companies try to establish popular brands in consumer minds because it increases leverage, which is directly reflected in sales and revenue

Given the large amount of time, money and effort companies invest in their brands; a good CSR policy is an effective means of protecting that investment and maximizing its impact.
These can clearly be seen from the cases of BP, Nike and Johnson & Johnson. All 3 companies made CSR their priorities due to which now:

BP with a $200 million re-branding exercise, has effectively re-positioned itself as the most environmentally sound and socially responsible of the extraction companies. The company stands in stark contrast today with Exxon Mobil that faces on-going NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) attacks, consumer boycotts,

Nike after facing consumer boycott in 1990 has now emerged as one of the most progressive global corporations in terms of CSR by publishing an annual CSR Report. This has helped the company to mitigate public opinion, establish its brand as representative of a much more committed corporate citizen.

And Johnson&Johnson could successfully manage its crisis regarding the Tylenol brand in 1982 by retracting 31 million bottles of the drug following a suspected poisoning/product-tampering incident. In acting in the way it did, Johnson & Johnson saved the Tylenol brand, enabling it to remain a strong revenue earner for the company to this day.

NOT only is CSR a concept that was important as showed in the past records but also it is simply the new reality of business. We can make this claim by explaining the 3 new identifiable trends:

Changing social expectations Consumers and society in general expect more from the companies whose products they buy. This sense has increased in the light of recent corporate scandals, which reduced public trust of corporations, and reduced public confidence in the ability of regulatory bodies and organizations to control corporate excess.

Globalization The growing influence of the media sees any ‘mistakes’ by companies brought immediately to the attention of the public. In addition, the Internet fuels communication among like-minded groups and consumers—empowering them to spread their message, while giving them the means to co-ordinate collective action (i.e. a product boycott).

Keeping the above stated facts in mind I’d like to restate once again that CSR is an important business strategy because, wherever possible, consumers want to buy products from companies they trust;
Suppliers want to form business partnerships with companies they can rely on;
Employees want to work for companies they respect and NGOs, increasingly, want to work together with companies seeking feasible solutions and innovations in areas of common concern.
AND it is by incorporating CSR into their strategy that a company can benefit greatly in today’s competitive market because CSR is a much more holistic approach to business.