|
A discussion of whether sustainability exists for the sake of leading and driving businesses towards a sustainable future, or for the sake of creating a new business is a discussion that requires more focus. Multiple critics of sustainability and CSR as a concept have questioned the legitimacy of both. There is evidence, as mentioned earlier, that seeks to challenge the concept of sustainability as being merely a buzz word or a concept that has won a positive semiotic value, both in its denotation and connotation. This is supported by Aras and Crowther who argue, “… that this treatment of sustainability is actually disingenuous and disguises the very real advantages that corpoations obtain by creating such a semiotic of sustainability.” (Aras & Crowther, 2009, p.284), and, “… it creates an image of the safety for investors and thereby reduces cost of capital for such corporations. Such language must be considered semiotically as a way of creating the impression of actual sustainability.” (Ibid., p.285). Hence, in both arguments they question the validity of the concept of CSR and sustainability and present it as something that relies on its semiotic value rather than being an action. This is further supported by Pomering and Dolnicar who state that, “Where CSR programs are cynically perceived to be used as a corporate image tactic, rather than a genuine reflection of a firm’s values and ethical commitment such claims may backfire.” (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009, p.287). Here, critics challenge the ethical perspective of sustainability and CSR. From these quotes the discussion on whether the concept acts to merely support business and add to the feel-good of the global business environment, or if the concept of sustainability and CSR is driven by a sincere obligation from the firms to operate towards a sustainable business, is opened.
The dispute once again lies in the weak definition of the concepts which have been discussed earlier. An interesting note is made by Kallio who states, “… the business world retained its hostile attitude towards environmental issues until the societal atmosphere and political arenas adopted a different kind of more optimistic – naïve one might say – environmentalism associated with the concept of sustainable development.” (Kallio, 2007, p.169). This note is interesting in that it clarifies the reason for why the global business society suddenly adapted the concept of sustainability. Not forgetting that positioning oneself, as company against the greater interest of society and political views, will in the long run contribute to the ‘death’ of the corporation. Or as Kallio states, “Thus, in the long run no corporation or industry can survive if it openly opposes the values of the greater public and therefore mislays its legitimacy.” (Kallio, 2007, p.170). Thus, an acceptance that society and the global political agendas create a need for these concepts. Since, companies are a part of society, it is without doubt that they are contributing to the creation and retention of the concept. Having identified this, the question is not a matter of whether or not a business or industry as a whole should engage in CSR and sustainability, it is rather a question of how long they can wait before they have to present and introduce the concept into the corporation. As Blanco & Souto note, “The increasing importance and current evolution of CSR as the new economic paradigm has to be supported with the development of new instruments to manage entrepreneurial strategies…” (Blanco & Souto, 2009, p.167).
Hence, if this is the case then the business world and society at large have, without doubt, created a market for these concepts. Thus, a lack of effort to cast doubt on these concepts has led to its strong position. The creation of a sustainability paradigm is real, and thus the legitimisation of both the semiotic value of the word sustainability has been accepted along with the CSR discourse (Kallio, 2007). Hence, it is key that the legitimacy of the concepts and their discourses are questioned in order to challenge the paradigm. This in turn, would make the discipline of CSR and sustainability vulnerable which may lead to questioning the existing market for the concepts, and thus also for the assurance programs. It would cast doubt on the effective competitive advantage which, for the moment being, is associated with the inclusion of a sustainability and CSR report. As Aras and Crowther note, “… firms have recognised the commercial benefits of increased transparency.” (Aras & Crowther, 2009, p.286). Moreover, an objection towards the existing CSR paradigm would question the validity of the existing sustainability programs, and thus affect the business world by making inquiries against an existing paradigm. Kallio states, “The political nature of CSR is not willingly discussed because it might lead to a rejection of the CSR rhetoric and thus threaten the integrity of the discourse.” (Kallio, 2007, p.173) as well as setting forth the question Are we facing a dimension of nihilation? Which is “… to suppress everything that is on the outside of the very same universe; to deny all the phenomena and interpretations that do not fit in this universe?”(Ibid., p.172).
Thus, can the discourse, the ethical issues, the corporations, and society in general handle a discussion that challenges and perhaps exposes the CSR and sustainability paradigm? From a theoretical perspective, and on the basis of the above-mentioned quotes, it seems unlikely that there is an interest in questioning the sustainability paradigm. The benefits as they are presented by theoreticians and empirical data are outweighing the cost in the sense that there so far has been a rejection of scholars and people from the business world who have questioned the concepts or tried to destabilise the paradigm and its concepts. However, this thesis tries to develop on this by discussing the assurance standards and if there is a direct influence on business performance when engaging with CSR. This is discussed in the following chapters.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
