Social sustainability in CSR reports - A multiple case study of social sustainability in CSR reports
Author
Kolbeck, Louise Cecilie
Term
4. term
Publication year
2018
Submitted on
2018-07-29
Pages
69
Abstract
Baggrund: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) bruges i stigende grad til at kommunikere, hvordan virksomheder arbejder med økonomiske, miljømæssige og sociale forhold. Den sociale dimension er dog mindre udforsket og mangler en klar definition, hvilket gør den svær at omsætte til praksis. Formål: at undersøge, hvordan social bæredygtighed bliver defineret i CSR-rapporter. Metode: Seks CSR-rapporter blev udvalgt og analyseret ved hjælp af en kvalitativ indholdsanalyse. Et omfattende litteraturstudie om CSR’s kontekst og historie, klassifikation af teorier, social bæredygtighed og CSR-kommunikation dannede grundlag for en analytisk ramme. Litteraturen pegede på fire historiske/kontekstuelle spor: ansvar og at tjene samfundet (1930’erne), godt for forretningen (1980’erne), corporate citizenship (1990’erne) og accountability (2000’erne og frem). Teorier blev grupperet i fire kategorier: instrumentel (forretningsdrevet), politisk, integrativ og etisk. Relevante undertemaer for social bæredygtighed var sundhed, indflydelse, kompetence, upartiskhed og meningsskabelse samt GRI-rapporteringstandarder. Faktorer som formål, målgruppe og skepsis kan påvirke, hvordan CSR rapporteres. Resultater: I de seks rapporter blev social bæredygtighed hyppigst knyttet til sundhed, kompetence og upartiskhed. Indflydelse og meningsskabelse forekom sjældnere og ikke i alle rapporter. Med afsæt i GRI-standarderne blev menneskerettigheder, lokalsamfund, offentlig politik og kunders privatliv også brugt til at definere social bæredygtighed. På tværs af rapporterne var den dominerende fortælling, at social bæredygtighed er godt for forretningen; ansvar og corporate citizenship var også tydelige, mens accountability kun fremgik nogle steder. I teoriklassifikationen var definitionerne overvejende instrumentelle (forretningsorienterede), med elementer fra politiske og etiske perspektiver. Samlet set definerede organisationerne social bæredygtighed på en mangesidet måde med fokus på sundhed, kompetence, upartiskhed og menneskerettigheder.
Background: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is increasingly used to communicate how organizations address economic, environmental, and social issues. The social dimension is less studied and lacks a clear definition, making it hard to put into practice. Aim: to examine how social sustainability is defined in CSR reports. Method: Six CSR reports were selected and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. An extensive literature review on CSR context and history, theory classifications, social sustainability, and CSR communication informed an analytical framework. The literature highlighted four historical/contextual narratives: responsibility and serving society (1930s), good for business (1980s), corporate citizenship (1990s), and accountability (2000s onward). Theories were grouped into instrumental (business-driven), political, integrative, and ethical categories. Relevant subthemes for social sustainability included health, influence, competence, impartiality, and meaning-making, along with GRI reporting standards. Factors such as purpose, audience, and skepticism can shape how CSR is communicated. Findings: In the six reports, social sustainability was most often linked to health, competence, and impartiality. Influence and meaning-making appeared less frequently and not in all reports. Drawing on GRI standards, human rights, local communities, public policy, and customer privacy were also used to frame social sustainability. Across the reports, the dominant narrative was that social sustainability is good for business; responsibility and corporate citizenship were also present, while accountability appeared in some cases. In the theory classification, definitions were mostly instrumental (business-oriented), with political and ethical elements also visible. Overall, organizations defined social sustainability in a multifaceted way centered on health, competence, impartiality, and human rights.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents