ASSESSMENT TASK 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

ASSESSMENT TASK 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
In this essay, I will cover the arguments and main points made by the article by Rasche et
al. (2017) as well as the article posted on the Guardian by Rhodes (2021). In the article by
Rasche et al. (2017), it was argued that corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives are forms
of corporate governance that require board members and corporate management to enforce
organizational accountability more effectively. Even though such point is legitimate within its
own rights, I have to say that I am going to support the arguments made the Guardian article by
Rhodes (2021) which says that CSR is only a haphazardly put together solution to environmental
and social issues, while failing to address the reality of economic inequality and injustice caused
by populist capitalism.
Arguments made by Rasche et al. (2017)
The first main point produced by the article by Rasche et al. (2017) explains CSR
motivators as corporate responders to the changing economic environment and ethical standards
caused by globalization. Rasche et al. (2017) has adopted a mixed between integrative and
instrumental perspectives in conceptualizing the definition of CSR programs are neither
philanthropic nor voluntary, but rather an adaptation made by multinational corporations
(MNCs) to ensure ethical adherence to heterogenous cultural mandates as well as the
extraterritorial regulations being implemented within different countries across the globe. Since
deflecting social responsibilities from one country to another has become unsustainable for many
companies, CSR becomes the guiding principle within international corporate governance that
sufficiently addresses ethical value discrepancies internationally. With businesses being rapidly
expanded abroad, not only were CSR programs proven to make MNCs appear less foreign to
international consumers, but also helping companies to effectively manage their corporate
footprints, which may influence their public image and stakeholders’ perception of the
companies.
The second main point made by Rasche et al. (2017) elaborates on the argument of CSR
being a purely management tool used by corporations to plan and implement internal policies.
Therefore, Rasche et al. (2017) argues that CSR doesn’t have much to do with actual economic,
social and environmental concerns. Since the focus of CSR is more related to a business goal
rather than a charitable cause, companies tend to put a higher emphasis on the end goal, which
consists of CSR reporting rather than process as well as the quality of ethical conduct.
Arguments made by Rhodes (2021)
The first main point made by Rhodes (2021) has to do with CSR initiatives becoming
commercialized by corporations to promote and market their reputation, rather than actually
doing anything to help social causes. CSR became a publicity stunt where companies attempted
to relate themselves with the interest of the consumers. Considering how much money
corporations made by supporting progressive celebrities in selling their social responsibility
“sob” stories to the press, the amount of financial support these companies have given back to
society was disproportionately meager. Charitable funds were not even receivable by those in
need, but rather became an investment for companies to funnel money into organizations and

1
ASSESSMENT TASK 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

research groups that serve the respective corporate interest. Evidence of such self-interest can be
shown through the progressively increasing wealth of billionaires in the midst of COVID-19
pandemic. If CSR initiatives were to be proportionally allocated based on corporate revenue,
such growth would not have been possible.
The second argument being made by Rhodes (2021) has to do with corporations and their
manipulation of politics and governmental operations. With companies siding with left-wing
political organizations, there seems to be a forged sense of artificial progressivism created by
woke capitalism. Through the financial support of corporations, bills and policies were being
constantly influenced and lobbied in favor of capitalistic pursuits, while companies are slowly
replacing governments in providing social goods and other functions that were initially allocated
to politicians.
Discussion on both arguments
Following those main points and arguments, it is apparent that the two articles share
some similarities regarding the purpose of CSR as a legitimate way to gather positive public
attention for companies rather than being a purely charitable and voluntary act. Additionally,
both articles agreed that CSR activities are simply tools used by corporations to get involved into
politics as a political actor. By taking on tasks and responsibilities that were originally reserved
only for government officials, companies were able to fill in the regulatory vacuum that was
either unattended or uncontrolled by the state.
On the other hand, the two articles differ in the way they address the implications of
corporate political involvement as an overarching systemic threat to democracy as a whole. In
his article, Rasche et al. (2017) suggested that corporate engagement in politics is only a natural
occurrence when there exist gaps where governments may not be able fill in for financial or
logistical reasons. On the other hand, Rhodes (2021) argued that corporate politics represent a
companies’ ambition to manipulate not only public policies, but also the ways in which
necessities and political ideologies are being distributed and promoted to everyday citizens.
After studying both articles, I find the argument of Rhodes (2021) most convincing since
it provides recent examples and evidence that demonstrates the existence of corporate’s over-
involvement in left-wing political movements (Scherer et al. 2014). The shift from right-wing
conservatism to left-wing progressivism does not necessarily change the nature of capitalism, but
serves as an excuse for the further expansion of self-interest by upmarketing economic inequality
through rose-colored promises. Within the regard of CSR being a corporate governing tool,
Rhodes (2021) also pointed out corporate citizenship as a political component of the relationship
between businesses and society. The existence of CSR, as a result, only serves the self-interest
purpose of validating business goals through cost saving measures and risk prevention (Nyberg
2021). With political campaigns now being advertised alongside corporate logos and CEO’s
endorsement, it is possible to say that the line is being blurred between business and politics and
the relationship between these two parties have become even more questionable over time
(Vogel 2010).
Conclusion

2
ASSESSMENT TASK 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

In conclusion, this essay has covered a summary of the main points and arguments made
by Rasche et al. (2017) and Rhodes (2021), as well as providing support to the argument made
by the Guardian article due to its use of recent examples and its holistic considerations of all
parties involved including stakeholders, governmental actors and consumers.

Reference

3
ASSESSMENT TASK 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

Nyberg, D (2021) ‘Corporations, Politics, and Democracy: Corporate political activities as

political corruption’, Organization Theory, 17(4): 03-15, doi: 10.1177/2631787720982618.
Rasche, A, Morsing, M and Moon, J (2017) Corporate social responsibility: Strategy,
communication, governance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Rhodes, C (28 October 2021) ‘Why progressive gestures from big business aren’t just useless –
they’re dangerous’, The Guardian, accessed 18 July 2021.
Scherer, AG, Palazzo, G and Matten, D (2014) ‘The business firm as a political actor: A new
theory of the firm for a globalized world’, Business & society, 53(2): 143-156,
doi:10.1177/0007650313511778.
Vogel, D (2010) ‘The Private Regulation of Global Corporate Conduct: Achievements and
Limitations’, Business & Society, 49(1): 68–87, doi: 10.1177/0007650309343407.