Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Relations and Community Engagement

Emerging Perspectives from South East Asia

Marianne Sison, Zeny Sarabia-Panol

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317561644
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Betriebswirtschaft
• Sous-sujet: Business allgemein

Diverse in economic development, political and mass media systems, the countries in Southeast Asia cast a unique light on the parallels between development-cum-participative communication and corporate social responsibility.

In our globalized environments, knowledge of power, culture and the colonial histories that influence and shape business and governance practices are increasingly important. Focusing on six countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam—the book discusses how public relations (PR) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourse are constructed, interpreted, communicated and enacted in this diverse emerging region. By connecting the disparate disciplines of participatory and development communication with PR and CSR discourse, this innovative text explores the tensions between concepts of modernity and traditional values and their role in engendering creativity, compliance or resistance.

This book will be of interest to researchers, educators and advanced students in the fields of public relations, communication, corporate social responsibility, corporate communications and Southeast Asia studies.

1 Introduction

Exploring the connections

Public relations (PR), corporate social responsibility (CSR) and community development are topics that are hardly used in the same sentence by scholars and practitioners in their respective fields. Although many scholars have examined public relations and CSR, limited attention has been given to public relations and community development, or corporate social responsibility and community development. Most scholars in community and international development are likely to scoff at any suggestion of being examined with public relations, given the general negative perceptions of public relations practice as ‘spin.’ Development communication scholars are also wont to possess a negative and narrow view of public relations, unaware of the growing critical public relations scholarship. A few communication-for-development scholars and many development practitioners, however, are slowly accepting the need for strategic communication, which we would argue, emerged from the public relations discipline (see Sison, 2017). Unbeknownst to many of these scholars, however, are the inextricable links between these three concepts, particularly within a Southeast Asian context. Or at least we seemed to think so, thus the exploration through this research project.

Growing up in the Philippines, both authors viewed organizations and workplaces as extensions of the home. Thus, workmates became part of one’s extended family. Combining its feudalist past (although some argue that it continues) with its largely Catholic traditions, Philippine businesses, from small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to large conglomerates, are mostly family owned and have some sense of social justice and responsibility. While working in the Philippines, we have witnessed and experienced how some businesses look after their employees and the communities in which they operate from a ‘paternalistic’ lens through provision of cash bonuses and other financial support. This form of philanthropy and the culture of ‘giving’, however, are not exclusive to the Philippines.

Since we migrated to Australia and the United States, respectively, we have both experienced Western-based workplaces and lifestyles in developed economies. Our lived experiences, juxtaposed with our lives in our home country, piqued our interest in examining the perspectives of the region in which we grew up. While we take a scholarly path to this inquiry, we are also ‘making sense’ of the multiplicity of our experiences. As we matured in our adopted countries, we gained the courage to question universalist and Western dominant approaches to knowledge. We contend the need for a diversity of perspectives particularly from areas not previously recognized in the literature. Acknowledging our own personal and educational histories, we have evolved to embrace a multiple perspective approach.

The shifts in the global order have also shaped our commitment to diverse perspectives. Globalization and the rapid advancement and pervasiveness of communication technology created a blurry, borderless world. At the same time, global financial crises in the West demanded a refocus on Asia. Moreover, the complexity of global issues such as poverty, climate change, malnutrition housed within the Sustainable Development Goals dictated multi-sector collaboration between the government, business and civil society.

This context suggests that a singular approach to scholarship is not sufficient. A multiple perspective approach to communication, which incorporates systems/functionalist, interpretive/rhetorical and critical/dialectical perspectives, provides a richer and more realistic understanding of the context in which CSR and PR practitioners work.

Public relations scholarship’s critical turn also paved the way for us to further explore a postcolonial perspective. Through a postcolonial lens that integrates critical and socio-cultural perspectives, we examine dimensions of power and culture in the PR and CSR discourse of local and multinational companies and their community stakeholders. This study answers the call of critical PR scholars for research that examines power imbalances (Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Prieto-Carrón, Chan, Thomsen & Bhushan, 2006); acknowledges the diversity and resistance of publics (Munshi & Kurian, 2005); listening to the voices of subalterns (Dutta, 2015) and for critical/cultural perspectives that “foregrounds the processes of continuously renegotiating meaning” (Curtin, Gaither & Ciszek, 2015, p. 41).

Various definitions of CSR focus on the corporation’s role in society. These definitions are often framed to articulate the company’s social and legal obligations to the community in which it operates and the environment in which its operations impact. Most studies have explored CSR from the perspective of the corporation and how CSR is employed as a ‘strategic imperative’ to legitimize its business operations.

CSR has also been referred to in terms of organizations acting as good citizens, when organizations have to interact with people and their environments (Kelly, 2001). Corporate social responsibility has often been defined based on its four dimensions: philanthropic, ethical, legal and economic (Carroll, 1991). Conceptually, corporate social responsibility refers to the “social involvement, responsiveness, and accountability of companies apart from their core profit activities and beyond the requirements of the law and what is otherwise required by government” (Chapple & Moon, 2005, p. 416).

However, CSR has moved beyond the ‘corporate’ world and into the realm of NGOs and governments. Furthermore, CSR has transcended its Western industrialized beginnings, and ventured into the enclaves of emerging economies. Inevitably with these transitions, the term CSR takes on new meaning. For businesses in developing countries wishing to globalize and modernize, CSR is added as a necessary requirement for the global organization. These definitions, however, become problematic in Asian contexts when CSR becomes a compliance mechanism for standards developed in the West. Some scholars argue that CSR is a Western construct that attempts homogeneity by establishing universal ethical standards brought about by globalization (Chapple & Moon, 2005). Furthermore, most CSR research tends be based in Western countries (Fukukawa, 2010).

Previous research indicated that CSR managers from poorer countries tend to focus more on community development programs especially when governments are not seen to be doing enough (Waldman, Sully du Luque, Washburn & House, 2006). Hirschland (2006) refers to this as the ‘governance gap.’ He posits that the gap results from absent or underperforming governments, unclear global rules, and “an increasing dependence on civil society and business to play a stronger role in global role creation and enforcement” (Hirschland, 2006, p. 18). Thus, even in developed Western countries, the private sector is often called upon to participate in nation building.

As this book will illustrate, some business practices in several Southeast Asian countries reflect elements of CSR, mostly philanthropy in all its different forms, way before the term CSR became popular. Because CSR is value and culture-laden, there will be nuances in how various countries and cultures interpret and practice CSR. In addition, as with public relations, CSR tends to be a function of a country’s economic condition. This is where CSR becomes entangled in concerns of economic development.

As we explore the various pathways that CSR took, particular attention will be given to finding out and understanding the perspectives of people often absent or given limited voice in the dominant conversations and literature on CSR and PR. These two groups we have identified are: the Southeast Asian region; and community stakeholders. We also highlight how tensions between concepts of modernity and traditional values have engendered resistance and creativity.

Connecting CSR with development has emerged as a key platform within the context of the United Nations’ (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) launched in 2000 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) unveiled subsequently in 2015.

As Newell and Frynas (2007, p. 669) note, international organizations and development agencies have “embraced CSR in the hope that the private sector can play a key role in achieving developmental goals aimed at poverty alleviation.” However, they point out that tensions exist between the use of CSR as a business tool and CSR as a development tool. While they realize that it is unrealistic to expect businesses to prioritize poverty alleviation, they suggest that CSR initiatives can “reinforce state-led development policy” (Newell & Frynas, 2007, p. 679).

Other researchers have examined CSR in Asia (Chapple & Moon, 2005; Fukukawa, 2010, 2014; Visser, 2008; Waldman et al., 2006; Welford, 2004) in an attempt to fill the scholarship gap from the region. Chapple and Moon (2005) found that the variances were not based on the countries’ level of development but based on their respective business systems. Differences in CSR practices among Asian countries were also due to differences in norms, values and local culture (Welford, 2004).

Similarly, a comparative study of social responsibility values of top management in 15 countries found that demographic, economic, cultural and leadership factors determined the CSR values of managers (Waldman et al., 2006). While it is useful to understand the regional context of CSR practice, the level of variance among different Asian countries requires a focus on how each country makes sense of corporate social responsibility based on its historical and socio-political frames. Moreover, a focus on the intersections between CSR, PR and community development have not been previously explored.

It is within this context that this book attempts to connect the disparate disciplines of participatory and development communication with public relations and corporate social responsibility discourse in Southeast Asia. With case studies from six countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam—we discuss how PR and CSR are interpreted, communicated and enacted within a national development context. We further postulate that admitting the connections between CSR and the UN development goals is profoundly germane to the book for two reasons: all six countries are UN members and therefore are keenly familiar with or have been working toward achieving the eight MDGs as well as the 17 SDGs. Besides, these countries have recalibrated their CSR along the sustainability continuum despite the differences in interpretations and implementation. Some even have pre-SDG focus on sustainability already. As the book chapters will show these countries have CSR programs aimed at addressing many of the MDGs and SDGs, such as poverty eradication, improving health and education, environmental sustainability and gender equity. Additionally, both CSR and the SDG processes share similar approaches in engaging multiple stakeholders—government, civil society and private sectors.

Why Southeast Asia?

Public relations scholarship has largely neglected Southeast Asia often in favor of economic powerhouses such as China, Japan and India. However, the region’s profile has recently increased with impressive GDP growth rates in 2017—Philippines (6.6 percent), Vietnam (6.3 percent), Indonesia (5.2 percent) and Malaysia (5.4 percent)—surpassing those of developed economies such as Australia (2.2 percent), the U.K. (1.7 percent), the U.S. (2.2 percent) and Canada (3.0 percent).¹ However, based on the United Nations’ Human Development Index, which combines life expectancy, education and income per capita measures, only Singapore (eleventh) and Brunei (thirty-first) are included in the Very High Human Development category. In the High Human Development category, Malaysia ranks 62 and Thailand is at 93. Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam appear in the Medium Human Development category at 110, 115 and 116, respectively.² Table 1.1 gives a comparative snapshot of the demographic, political and media systems of the six ASEAN countries selected for this research.

Given the disparity between economic and human development, the region also provides a platform to examine the interactions between government, the private sector and civil society within the context of participative/development communication, social responsibility and corporate communication/public relations. Moreover, Southeast Asia represents a diversity in political and mass media systems, colonial histories, culture and natural resources which undoubtedly influences how CSR and PR are perceived, interpreted and enacted.

Two recent developments highlight the timeliness of this book: (1) the establishment in 2015 of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Community that expect member countries to integrate along economic, security and socio-cultural channels and (2) the rise of populism in the West that most likely will affect the ‘pivot to Asia’ as a priority. Of particular relevance is the ASEAN Community’s socio-cultural blueprint that indicates approaches to achieving its vision toward “A committed, participative and socially-responsible community through an accountable and inclusive mechanism for the benefit of all ASEAN peoples, upheld by the principles of good governance” ASEAN Socio Cultural Community Blueprint 2025 (2016, p. 3).

We note that the Trump administration’s attitude toward Asia and the scuttling of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2017, on the other hand, can be worrisome as these will power more geopolitical shifts as ...