Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
21Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
theory

theory

Ratings:

3.0

(1)
|Views: 767|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Anisur Rahman Faroque on Aug 28, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)Models and Theories in Stakeholder Dialogue
By Linda O’Riordan and Jenny FairbrassSchool of ManagementUniversity of BradfordEmm LaneBradfordBD9 4JLE-mail: linda.oriordan@freenet.de
Work in progress. Please do not cite.
Paper prepared for the Corporate Responsibility Research Conference, 4-5 September 2006,Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
 
ABSTRACTThe pharmaceutical sector, an industry already facing stiff tests in the form of intensifiedcompetition and strategic consolidation, has increasingly become subject to a variety of otherpressures. Significantly, in common with other large-scale businesses, pharmaceutical firmsare being exhorted to respond positively to the challenge of corporate (social) responsibility(CSR). Clearly, for individual managers within pharmaceutical firms the issue of CSR in theform of closely connected questions relating to patient access to health treatment, patentprotection and affordability presents major problems. Part of the burden of addressing thedemands of CSR is the need to engage effectively with a range of stakeholders. Individualmanagers in pharmaceutical companies have to confront the complicated task of choosingwhich stakeholder dialogue practices to adopt and why. This real-world managementpredicament runs parallel to an academic interest in CSR stakeholder dialogue theory andmodels. Accordingly, this paper contributes to primarily to the academic debate by reviewingpast attempts to theorise CSR and stakeholder dialogue, identifying gaps and weaknesses, andproposing a diagram-type model as a refined prototype framework. However, ultimately theintention is to offer guidance to business managers. The model proposed here contains thosefactors considered most relevant for describing, analysing, and explaining the CSRstakeholder dialogue practices of pharmaceutical companies, with the intention of conductingcomparative international research. It is envisaged that the model outlined will be employedin future empirical research concerning stakeholder dialogue practices amongst UK andGerman pharmaceutical firms.
 
INTRODUCTIONGiven the critical attention that ‘big business’ in general and pharmaceutical companies inparticular have received from
inter alia
the media, Governments and non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs), the pharmaceutical sector has increasingly come under the pressure of responding to the challenge of corporate (social) responsibility (CSR). This trend is setagainst a background in which the industry is already under considerable pressures arisingfrom intensified competition and strategic consolidation. Clearly, CSR and the closelyconnected questions of access to health treatment, patent protection and affordability presentmajor concerns for managers of pharmaceutical companies today. Part of the burden of addressing the demands of CSR is the need to engage effectively with a range of stakeholders.Individual managers in pharmaceutical companies have to confront the complicated task of choosing which stakeholder dialogue practices to adopt and why. This real-worldmanagement predicament runs parallel to an academic interest in CSR stakeholder dialoguetheory and models.To develop the points introduced above, it could be argued that the general public, whetherrightly or wrongly, typically holds a negative perception of ‘big business’ (Acutt 2004:306;Clark 2000; Crane & Matten 2004:12; Deresky 2000:16; Greenfield 2004; Handy 2003:78;Hoertz Badaracco 1998; Kotler and Lee, 2005:221-2; Weiss 1998:4; www.mallenbaker.net2004). One likely cause for the negative image associated with ‘big business’ is the repeatedoccurrence of certain high profile events, labelled by many as ‘scandals’. These events haveinvolved some of the largest and, previously, most highly regarded organisations in the worldincluding, for example, Enron, Arthur Andersen, Parmalat, Shell, Nestlé, Union Carbide andNike (Ruggie 2003; O’Higgins 2005; Handy 2003). Their tainted image has often beenfuelled by attention from the media and other stakeholders (Oxfam/VSO/Save the Children2002; Clark 2000; Brammer and Pavelin 2004; www.twnside.org. 2004; Weiss 1998:35).

Activity (21)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Mandzir Shah liked this
marhaendy liked this
kasim.tatic liked this
San Patil liked this
Lee Ching liked this
wei_de liked this
Irfanhayat liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->