roles, attitudes, and competencies of managers of csr ... roles, attitudes, and competencies of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Roles, Attitudes, and Competencies of Managers of CSR-Implementing Companies in
Malaysia
Maimunah Ismail, Professor Dr Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education
Faculty of Educational Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. [email protected]
Muhammad Ibnu Kassim
Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education Faculty of Educational Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Mohd Rozi Mohd Amit Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education
Faculty of Educational Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia [email protected]
Roziah Mohd Rasdi, Dr
Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education Faculty of Educational Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
Stream: Innovation, Sustainability & HRD Submission type: Refereed paper Abstract
Managers play a vital role in helping organizations deal with various corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to stakeholders in communities. Despite the extant literature on CSR and its strategies undertaken by business companies, including multinational corporations (MNCs), little is known about the roles, attitudes, and competencies of CSR managers in executing their CSR tasks in the Malaysian context. This exploratory study investigates the relationship between the corresponding roles, attitudes, and competencies of CSR managers and the CSR orientations of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. The study involved 112 managers of CSR-implementing companies in the Klang Valley, a highly industrialized region in Malaysia. We found that the level of perception of roles and competencies of CSR managers is high whereas that for attitudes is moderate. Further, competency is found to be significantly correlated with all CSR
2
orientations. Recommendations for practice and future research on CSR managers are put forth. Keywords: Business company, corporate social responsibility, roles, attitudes, competencies, managers, Malaysia INTRODUCTION The Research Context Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an interesting area for seeking empirical evidence on
the characteristics of CSR managers. This is due to its multidisciplinary nature and the
multiple types of business corporations involved in CSR as well as the fact that CSR
managers are the middlemen between corporations and society. Conventionally, CSR is
defined as the social involvement, responsiveness, and accountability of companies apart
from their core businesses and beyond the requirements of the law and what is otherwise
required by government (Chapple & Moon, 2005). Specifically, CSR is identified by its
underlying strategic purposes (e.g., legitimacy, responsibility for social externality, and
competitive advantage), its drivers (e.g., market, social regulation, and government
regulation), and its orientations (e.g., economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropy) (Carroll,
1998; Visser, 2008). Studying CSR managers would provide evidence on one of the business-
society relations within companies. It is argued that the personal initiatives of CSR managers
can make a difference in company performance (Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004). This
indicates the importance of identifying the roles, attitudes, and competencies of individual
managers.
A great deal of research has now been conducted on CSR in Western countries
(Anglo-American business systems), but relatively little is focused on Asia, particularly in
Malaysia. With a population of 29.0 million in 2012, it is interesting to note that Malaysia has
undergone tremendous economic changes at the turn of the century. Based on the Human
Development Index (HDI), Malaysia is ranked the highest among Southeast Asian countries
3
(61st) compared to Thailand (103rd), the Philippines (112th), and Indonesia (124th). In 2008,
Malaysia’s foreign direct investment (FDI) was 3.3% of GDP (net inflows) (UNDP, 2011),
which implies that it has a significant influence on the roles of MNCs as investors that bring
in capital in CSR. Furthermore, with the launch of Government Transformation Programs
(GTP) as part of the New Economic Model (NEM) at the beginning of 2010 in Malaysia, the
significance of CSR has increased. CSR is categorized as one of the Strategic Reform
Initiatives (SRIs), one of which is “re-energizing the private sector” in mainstream
development (NEAC, 2010). Therefore, it is envisaged that CSR providers in Malaysia, such
as MNCs and medium and large-scale industrial firms, should complement the tasks of
government-linked companies (GLCs) and government ministries in speeding up the GTPs to
attain the three ambitious policy goals of attaining high income status, inclusiveness, and
sustainability in the society.
In Malaysia, CSR research seems to be limited in its coverage. The available studies
particularly conducted in the twenty-first century are confined to aspects of CSR disclosures
of industrial companies (Nik Ahmad et al., 2003; Mohd Ghazali, 2008). However, these
studies were heavily dependent on annual report documents and information derived from the
companies’ websites. Studies on the development of corporate social reporting of companies
are closely related to the above (Amran & Suppiah, 2007; Amran & Abdul Khalid, 2009).
Other available CSR studies in Malaysia include awareness of CSR among selected
companies (Nik Ahmad & Abdul Rahim, 2005), consumer behavior toward CSR (Abdul
Rahim et al., 2010), and CSR practices among business organizations (Siwar & Md Harizan,
2009). These studies do support our understanding of CSR in the country; however, they are
limited in their scope as they do not address elements of CSR from the perspective of primary
stakeholders, particularly managers.
4
The only relevant studies are on managers’ perception of CSR in the Islamic context
(Dusuki & Dar, 2005; Dusuki, 2006; Siwar & Hossain, 2009) as well as attitudes of
Malaysian managers and executives toward CSR (Abdul Rashid & Abdullah, 1991; Abdul
Rashid & Ibrahim 2002). However, these studies have their own limitations and a lot more on
the perspective of CSR managers remains unexplored. For example, little is known regarding
the roles, attitudes, and competencies of CSR managers as these characteristics are important
for them to function effectively.
The article addresses the following research questions: i) What is the level of roles,
attitudes, and competencies of CSR managers? ii) How do CSR managers perceive the core
CSR orientations of corporations in terms of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
responsibilities? iii) What is the relationship between the level of the roles, attitudes, and
competencies of CSR managers and perceived CSR orientations? This study is significant
because to understand CSR, it is necessary to examine the manner in which managers view
the role of business in society from the perspective of CSR orientations and their own
perceptions of roles, attitudes, and competencies. Most importantly, this study provides
empirical evidence on CSR managers’ characteristics as this may have an implication on the
performance of corporations as the latter is important in responding to the calls of NEM for
the greater contribution of corporations to the country’s economic development.
The remainder of this article is structured in the following manner: The next
subsection continues to describe CSR managers as stakeholders, what drives CSR in
Malaysia, and the study context. Thereafter, a literature review is presented on the mixed
reactions of managers toward CSR particularly in community involvement, the importance of
knowing the characteristics of CSR managers, and the expectations related to the
characteristics of CSR managers in terms of roles, attitudes, and competencies. Then, the
stakeholder theory is discussed as the underlying theory used in this study as well as the CSR
5
orientations based on Visser’s (2008) model. The article proceeds to present the
methodological procedures undertaken, followed by the results of the analysis and
discussions. The article ends with a conclusion that discusses the roles, attitudes, and
competencies of CSR managers and recommendations for practice and future research.
Managers as CSR Stakeholders
Managers are one of the groups of CSR stakeholders. There are two types of CSR
stakeholders: primary and secondary stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995). The primary stakeholder
group is one without whose continuing participation, the company cannot survive as an
ongoing concern. Primary stakeholder groups typically comprise employees such as the
company managers in various job departments, shareholders and investors, customers, and
suppliers, together with what is defined as the public stakeholder group: the government and
communities that provide infrastructures and markets, whose laws and regulations must be
obeyed, and to whom taxes and other obligations may be due. The primary stakeholder
groups have a complex set of relationships among interest groups with different rights,
objectives, expectations, and responsibilities. Dahlsrud’s (2008) definition of CSR includes
stakeholder as one of the five dimensions along with social, economic, environmental, and
voluntariness.
Secondary stakeholders are defined as those who influence or affect, or are influenced
or affected by, the corporation; however, they are not engaged in transactions with the
corporation and are not essential for the survival of the corporation. The media and a wide
range of special interest groups are considered as secondary stakeholders under this
definition. They have the capacity to mobilize public opinion in favor of, or in opposition to a
corporation. Secondary stakeholders may be opposed to the policies or programs that a
6
corporation has adopted to fulfill its responsibilities toward, or to satisfy the needs and
expectations of its primary stakeholder groups.
Drivers of CSR in Malaysia
In Malaysia, CSR is a new concern; the growth of CSR in the country can be attributed to
recent influences that are divided into two categories: internal and external influences. The
internal influences include development initiatives, which as a whole represent the outcome
of the development policies of the country. These initiatives include the development of the
Bursa Malaysia framework in 2006, the emergence of Silver Book in 2006, and the
inauguration of the CSR awards in 2007. On the other hand, the external influences are the
direct and indirect results of globalization, such as the expansion of CSR waves, the spread of
MNCs to developing countries, and the emergence of The Global Compact Network
Malaysia (GCNM).
The most influential internal driver of CSR is The Prime Minister’s CSR Awards
launched by the Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development in 2007. The
purpose of the awards is to recognize companies that have made a substantial impact on
communities in which they are active through their CSR-related programs. Other equally
significant drivers of CSR in Malaysia are the establishment of CSR guidelines by
institutions such as the National Integrity Plan (NIP) by the Institute Integrity of Malaysia
(IIM) in April 2004, the Silver Book by the Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance
(PCG) in September 2006, and the CSR Framework for GLCs by Bursa Malaysia in late 2006
(PEMANDU, 2010). These guidelines strengthen CSR management undertaken by the
various corporations in the country, even though several acts, as indicated above, have
already been in place since the 1970s.
7
The term “waves of CSR” refers to three types of CSR: community involvement,
socially responsible production processes, and socially responsible employee relations
(Chambers et al., 2003; Chapple & Moon, 2005). Waves of CSR appear to be due to the
“multiplier effect” of business conducted by MNCs in the country of operation. Community
involvement, a traditional form of CSR, is generally assumed to refer to philanthropy or
charity (Chapple & Moon, 2005). However, currently, there are other aspects involved in
building business-community relations, for example, partnerships and alliances that go
beyond philanthropy. Socially responsible production reflects the ability of the company to
conduct both its supply chain and on-site operations, in matters related to the environment,
health and safety, human resources, and ethics, in a socially responsible manner. Employee
relations pertain to issues of employee welfare and employee engagement. Socially
responsible employee relations refer to the status of the workforce as stakeholders in the
company’s decision-making process and in the development of CSR practices. This CSR
wave includes initiatives taken by CSR managers and not only aims to improve the well-
being of the employees within the company but also other stakeholders in the community.
This is where CSR managers need to possess relevant behavioral qualities in terms of roles,
attitudes, and competencies.
Other external drivers that corroborate the growth of CSR in Malaysia are the spread
of MNCs in developing countries and the influences of the GCNM. The spread of MNCs is
believed to have been caused by the globalization phenomenon, which affects FDI brought in
by MNCs and by the growth in CSR academic research (Chambers et al., 2003). The GCNM
is a network that functions to promote the principles of the United Nations Global Compact
(UNGC) (UN Global Compact, 2009) concerning human rights, rights of workers,
preservation of the environment, and anti-corruption in Malaysian companies. By connecting
to the network, business companies get an opportunity to showcase their CSR activities
8
internationally and gain access to an arena for interaction with companies and businesses. In
this context, managers help in protecting the interests of their companies and that of
companies’ stakeholders in CSR-related functions.
LITERATURE REVIEW This literature reviews section consists of two parts. The first part discusses the evidence on
the mixed reactions of managers toward CSR and the second part discusses the importance of
knowing their expected roles, attitudes, and competencies in CSR.
Evidence on the Mixed Reactions of Managers toward CSR, Particularly in Community Involvement Lee’s (2008) analysis on the evolutionary path of CSR, as reported by Friedman (1970),
considered CSR managers a liability with highly uncertain outcomes. This led to a significant
resistance toward CSR from companies until the late 1970s. One of the reasons was the
danger of misappropriation of funds by managers because they were perceived as not
possessing sufficient skills and expertise on CSR at the time. An analysis of Friedman’s
(1970) results revealed that the foremost responsibility of corporate managers was to
maximize shareholders’ wealth; managers perceived that community problems should be the
functions of politicians and other community leaders. Hence, managers’ commitment toward
CSR was also low.
Further, managers view that their responsibilities toward employees, customers, and
the government are much easier to visualize and manage than their responsibilities toward
society (Lee, 2008). The reason for this is that the managers’ responsibilities toward the
primary stakeholders are structured in the mission and vision documents of the corporation.
9
However, managers’ responsibilities toward society through CSR are occasionally described
in an ad hoc manner and have a flexible period of accomplishment.
Friedman (1970, cited in McWilliams, Siegel and Wright, 2006) expressed the same
sentiment and added that the mere existence of CSR was a sign of an agency problem within
the firm. The agency theory perspective implies that CSR is a misuse of corporate resources
that would be better spent on valued-added internal projects or returned to shareholders. The
theory also suggests that CSR is an executive perk in the sense that managers may use CSR
to advance their other personal agendas such as selling company’s product which is beyond
their official task.
However, Freeman’s (1984, cited in McWilliams, Siegel and Wright, 2006) assertion
which is in line with stakeholder theory, presented a more positive view of managers’ support
for CSR. He asserted that managers must satisfy a variety of stakeholders such as employees,
customers, suppliers, and local community organizations who can influence the company’s
outcomes. This idea implies that firm engagement in certain CSR activities may enable the
firm to garner support particularly from non-financial stakeholders. The stakeholder theory
was expanded by including the moral and ethical dimensions of CSR, thereby emphasizing
the idea that there is a moral significance for managers to “do the right thing” in their
endeavors.
The Importance of Roles, Attitudes, and Competencies of CSR Managers
The resources in a corporation and its environment, including the community, are linked
through CSR. Hence, the role of management is a key factor in ensuring the success of CSR.
Characteristics specifically roles, attitudes, and competencies of managers, affect the CSR
functions of corporations because these characteristics are considered inputs to the system
10
and performance outputs based on the system theory in management (Fernández, Junquera, &
Ordiz, 2006).
Characteristics of managers are important criteria to be considered in the practice of
human resource development (HRD). In addition, a manager is one of the human resources in
the CSR workplace environment (Bursa Malaysia, 2006; Chapple & Moon, 2005). This
implies that a corporation should ensure a quality work environment in which the roles,
attitudes, and competencies of the employees, including the managers of various job
departments, as one of the primary concerns of the corporation’s management in the pursuit
of creating a knowledgeable workforce. Furthermore, a socially responsible employer
requires functional CSR managers with appropriate roles, attitudes, and competencies.
Expected Roles, Attitudes, and Competencies of CSR Managers
The expected roles, attitudes, and competencies of CSR managers can be described in the
following manner:
i) Fernández et al.’s (2006) study on the profile of an environmental strategies manager
revealed three groups of characteristics: a) managerial attitudes and social influence, b)
individual characteristics, and c) organizational characteristics. Managerial attitudes imply
that managers should have positive attitudes toward creating norms that would clarify the
objectives of environmental management and enable compliance with legislation. Social
influence refers to the sense of duty generated in the environment of the person with
management responsibilities to continue supporting environmental actions. Individual
characteristics relate to knowledge, skills, creativity and efficiency, leadership capability,
individual entrepreneurial ability, and international awareness. Of particular importance
among the individual characteristics is the attitude as it explains the manager’s emotional
11
involvement in and contribution toward CSR issues, as well as the manager’s ability to
identify opportunities that are internal or external to the manager’s organization. Even certain
personal attitudes, such as hedonism, are considered associated with openness to change,
particularly toward CSR innovations (Egri & Herman, 2000).
ii) It has also been revealed that CSR managers should possess technical, interpersonal, and
communication skills because managers need to communicate with external stakeholders
(Egri & Herman, 2000). Technical skills are those related to the company’s products and
processes. They are skills such as those that allow the application of computers to rural
residents and the systematic solving of problems in relation to bridging the digital divide.
iii) There are a number of organizational characteristics that should be possessed by CSR
managers. Two of these are the capability of integrating CSR into the business strategy of the
organization (Cordano & Frieze, 2000) and possessing transformational leadership qualities
(Egri & Herman, 2000; Fernández et al., 2006). The first characteristic is when a manager is
capable of influencing the business strategy, for example, to include environmental
protection. For example, a manager of a pharmaceutical company has the capability of
influencing his company on the use of biodegradable raw material (such as palm oil) in the
production of vitamin E. The second characteristic is very fundamental to organizational
management. Transformational leadership refers to roles of CSR leaders as innovators
(creative problem solving and adjustment), brokers (link groups to obtain resources),
mediators (exercise influence in managing conflict), and mentors (develop human resources),
which as a whole bring innovations to the organization.
iv) Another characteristic that is important for a CSR manager to possess is entrepreneurial
ability. This is considered both a personal and organizational quality. Entrepreneurial ability
is very pertinent for those who perform marketing tasks in addition to CSR tasks.
Entrepreneurial ability also depends on technical skills, particularly in relation to a
12
company’s product processing, manufacturing, and marketing activities (Egri & Herman,
2000). This ability is necessary as it helps the company in promoting its products while
interacting with people in social activities.
The Stakeholder Theory and CSR Orientations The Stakeholder Theory. The theoretical framework of this article is based primarily on the
stakeholder theory. The stakeholder theory proposes that the nature of an organization’s
stakeholders, their values, their relative influence on decisions, their personal and
professional characteristics are among relevant information necessary for predicting
organizational behavior and outcomes (Gioia, 1999; Hung, 2011). Based on Garriga and
Mele’s (2004) analysis, the stakeholder approach combines the integrative and ethical
theories, where the former emphasizes the integration of social demands and the latter
focuses on the right ethics to create a good society. These are supported by the work of
Mitchel, Agle, and Wood (1997), in which balancing the interests of stakeholders is the major
concern, including monitoring and identification of skills and competencies required. The
pluralistic nature of the stakeholder theory is based on the notion that there are many groups
in society apart from owners and employees to whom the corporation is responsible (Jawahar
& McLaughlin, 2001). As a descriptive theory, the stakeholder theory has been used to
describe not only the nature of stakeholders but also the characteristics and profiles of the
managers (Fernández et al., 2006). The stakeholder theory has been used in developing
strategies to improve management of firms and create effective managers who, according to
Bierema and D’abundo (2004), are a group of human resource professionals. Further, the
stakeholder theory considers a firm an interconnected web of different interests where firm
and community interact interdependently and altruism among individuals is a norm (Hung,
2011).
13
Companies should be aware of the fact that CSR does not mean the same thing to all
stakeholders, not even to all employees, including CSR managers. Thus, companies have to
communicate on different policies with concrete examples. They should also develop CSR
training to stimulate exchange and discussion among their employees and contribute to the
creation of a common culture (Sobczak, Debucquet, & Havard, 2006).
Orientation on the CSR Pyramid. This article adopts CSR orientations based on the CSR
pyramid for developing countries (Visser, 2008), which are arranged according to economic,
philanthropic, legal, and ethical responsibilities. It is basically based on the classic Carroll’s
CSR pyramid (Carroll, 1991) ordered as economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
responsibilities. Economic responsibility is emphasized the most in all developed and
developing countries and is highly acknowledged by both governments and communities.
Specifically in Malaysia, business companies are expected to function as one of the economic
enablers in the implementation of the NEM through their participation in CSR (PEMANDU,
2010).
Philanthropic responsibility is the second emphasis in developing countries (Visser,
2008). The reasons for this can be described in the following manner: First, there is a strong
indigenous tradition of philanthropy, and in Malaysia it is the old form of CSR known by the
society (Ismail, 2009). Second, philanthropy is considered the most direct way to improve the
well-being of the communities in which corporations’ businesses operate. Third, in the past
five decades, many developing countries have become familiar with donor assistance; hence,
there is an ingrained culture of philanthropy in the community. Furthermore, the term is
almost synonymous with CSR because, generally, developing countries are still at an early
maturity stage of CSR (Visser, 2008).
14
Legal responsibility is the third aspect of this pyramid. Many developing countries are
behind the developed world in terms of incorporating human rights and other CSR issues into
their legislation. However, some countries have made significant progress in strengthening
the social and environmental aspects of their legislation (Visser, 2008). In Malaysia, several
acts have already been in place since the 1970s, such as the Environment Quality Act (1974),
Anti-corruption Act (1977), and Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act (1999) (Lu &
Castka, 2009).
Ethical responsibility is related to activities and practices that are expected or
prohibited by society for companies to run their businesses (Carroll, 1991). In developing
countries, ethics seems to have the least influence on CSR activities. Accountability to
shareholders, corruption, and transparency in terms of tax payment to the government remain
problematic issues. In contrast, western countries have ascribed a much higher priority to
ethical responsibility in CSR (Visser, 2008).
METHOD
Instrument
The study instrument is a questionnaire that is divided into five sections. The first section
deals with questions on CSR orientations of economic, philanthropic, legal, and ethical
responsibilities. This CSR concept has emerged as an inclusive and global concept that
encompasses corporate social performance, responsiveness, and the entire spectrum of
socially beneficial activities of corporations. An example of item in this section that relates to
economic orientation is, “Our business has a procedure in place to respond to every customer
complaint.” For philanthropic responsibility, an example of item is, “It is important to
perform in a manner consistent with the charitable expectations of society.” Likewise for
15
legal orientation, an example of item is, “It is important to be a law-abiding corporate
citizen”. Finally, an example of item for ethical responsibility is, “It is important to perform
in a manner consistent with expectations of societal mores and ethical norms.”
Questions on roles, attitudes, and competencies of CSR managers are adapted from
Bytheway and Lambert (1998) and Juechter et al. (1998). The second section contains eight
items on roles specifically, the understanding of and views on managers’ roles toward CSR in
community development. An example of an item is, “The CSR manager should take
responsibility to develop a formal policy on sustainable practices toward the community.”
The third section deals with managers’ attitude toward CSR and includes 10 items. An
example of a statement is, “Involvement of business in improving the community’s quality of
life will also improve its long run profitability.” The fourth section contains 16 items on
managers’ competencies in executing CSR in community development. An example of an
item is, “Make CSR plans that are clear and realistic.” Items in all these sections used a
seven-point Likert scale in measuring the CSR orientations and behaviors of managers. The
seven-point Likert scale is chosen over the five-point Likert scale as it increases the
variability of the answers (Grover & Vriens, 2006).
Respondents were required to rate all items based on a scale from 1–7 where “1 =
absolutely untrue” and “7 = absolutely true.” The following are few examples of items
included in the questionnaire: i) Economic responsibility: “It is important for each company
to maintain a strong competitive position”; ii) Legal responsibility: “It is important for each
company to assist the arts and cultural activities”; iii) Legal responsibility: “It is important for
each company to be a law-abiding corporate citizen”; and iv) Ethical responsibility: “It is
important for each company to perform in a manner consistent with expectations of societal
mores and ethical norms.” It is important to relate managers’ perception of CSR orientations
16
with their roles, attitudes, and competencies because the former is related to the fundamental
elements of CSR and the latter is related to the behavioral characteristics of managers. The
relationship between the two aspects is significant in determining the performance of CSR
managers and their companies.
The last section of the questionnaire comprises items on the socio-demographic
profiles of managers. It includes items on the demographic and job information of
respondents such as gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, race, religion,
position in company, nature of organization, industrial sector, monthly income, and years of
involvement in CSR programs. Based on a pilot test and the actual study, it was found that
the reliabilities of the instruments are acceptable which Cronbach Alpha ranges from .76 to
.87 (in pilot test) and .86 to .90 (in the actual study). Table 1 presents the reliability values for
each section in the pilot test and the actual study.
Table 1: Results of the pilot test and actual study
Pilot test (n = 24) Actual Study (n = 112)
Scale Number of items
Cronbach’s Alpha ( )
Number of items
Cronbach’s Alpha ( )
CSR Orientations:
-Economic
7
.78
7
.89
-Legal 7 .77 7 .88
-Ethical 7 .76 7 .87
-Philanthropic 8 .78 8 .87
Roles 8 .85 8 .90
Attitudes 10 .87 10 .90
Competencies 16 .86 16 .86
Population and Sampling
17
The study population is the CSR managers of local companies and MNCs in the Klang
Valley. The expected total of business companies that are involved in CSR in the Klang
Valley is 350. The average number of respondents from each company is assumed to be two.
Therefore, the population of CSR managers is 700 (350 companies multiplied by 2). Hence,
based on the sampling procedure of Krejcie and Morgan (1970), the sample size required is
248. The sampling and data collection procedures that were undertaken in this study are
described in Figure 1.
The first step was the identification of companies involved in CSR. The second step
was telephonically contacting CSR managers from selected companies. The third step was
setting up an appointment with the respective companies. The fourth and fifth steps involved
the distribution of questionnaires and subsequent collection from the contacted managers of
the companies, respectively.
Respondents were asked to respond to all questions by circling answers that were
most applicable to them. The process of data collection involved “drop-and-pick” technique
and online survey which took place throughout March 2012. The response rate of this study is
quite low (16.7%) given the demanding workload of the samples.
18
Figure 1: The data collection procedure of the study Profile of the Respondents
A majority of the respondents are below the age of 40 years with the average age of
34.13 years, males 60.7%, those with a bachelor’s degree 77.7%, married 67.9%, and Malays
81.3%. In terms of job profile, 64.3% of them have work experience of under 10 years,
59.5% are in lower managerial positions, 52.7% belong to foreign-owned companies, 53.6%
belong to ICT-based companies, 51% have a monthly income of below RM3500, and the
average number of years of involvement in CSR is 4.48 (see Table 2).
Table 2: Demographic Profiles of the Respondents (n = 112) Profile Frequency Percentage Age (years) (M = 34.1, SD = 7.6) ≤30 31–35 36–40 41–45 46–50 ≥51
44 23 25 11 7 2
39.3 20.5 22.3 9.8 6.3 1.8
Identify ICT-based companies using the Internet and newspaper
Contact the company to get the name of CSR managers
aainvolved Contact the manager for an appointment
Distribute the questionnaire
Collect the completed questionnaire
Analyze data from the collected questionnaire
19
Gender Male Female
68 44
60.7 39.3
Marital status Single Married Divorced
30 76 6
26.8 5.4
Educational attainment Matriculation/A Level/STPM Diploma Bachelor Master
2 14 87 9
1.8 12.5 77.7 8.0
Work experience (years) (M = 8.8, SD = 6.2) ≤5 6–10 11–15 16–20 ≥21
48 24 19 18 3
42.9 21.4 17.0 16.1 2.79
Race Malay Chinese Indian Others
91 14 5 2
81.3 12.5 4.5 1.8
Position Top level Upper-middle level Lower managerial level
17 28 66
15.3 25.2 59.5
Nature of Organization Private sector (locally owned) Private sector (foreign-owned) Others (GLCs)
40 59 13
35.7 52.7 11.6
Sector of industry Infrastructure Finance Properties ICT Industrial products Consumer products Services Automotive
4 1 2 60 5 14 13 13
3.6 0.9 1.8 53.6 4.5 12.5 11.6 11.6
Income (RM) ≤2500 2501–3000 3001–3500 3501–4000 4001–4500 4501–5000 ≥5001
20 18 19 2 11 8 34
17.9 16.1 17.0 1.8 9.8 7.1 30.4
20
Data Analysis Exploratory Data Analysis was first conducted to test all assumptions of parametric analysis.
The levels of roles, attitudes, and competencies of the respondents were described
descriptively as high (5.00 to 7.0), medium (3.00 to 4.99), and low (1 to 2.99). The Pearson
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to identify relationship between the
orientations of CSR practices and the three characteristics of CSR managers. The .05 level of
significance was used in the analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Roles
Table 3 shows data pertaining to the perception of respondents on CSR managers’ roles.
Overall, they have a high perception on the eight roles of being a CSR manager with a special
emphasis on the statement that managers should participate in voluntary and charitable
activities within their local communities (M = 6.07, SD =.99). The lowest perceived role is
that the CSR manager should assume the responsibility of developing a formal policy on
sustainable practices for the community (M = 5.84, SD = .98).
Number of years of CSR involvement (M = 4.58, SD = 3.45) ≤5 6–10 11–15 ≥16
81 24 6 1
72.3 21.4 5.4 0.9
21
Table 3: Managers’ roles and related descriptive statistics
Description of Roles Mean SD Level Grand
Mean
The CSR manager should assume the responsibility of developing a formal policy on sustainable practices for the community.
5.84 .98 High 5.96 (High)
SD = .62
The commitment of top management toward CSR is very important and should be expressed in tangible terms to reinforce the right kind of behavior in the organization.
6.04 .92 High
It is important that managers participate in voluntary and charitable activities within their local communities.
6.07 .99 High
The CSR manager should assume the responsibility of designing a Performance Management System that measures the social responsibility initiatives taken by employees.
5.87 1.04 High
The CSR manager should assume the responsibility of instilling the culture of CSR toward society among employees.
5.93 .97 High
The CSR manager should assume the responsibility of ensuring that the team consists of experienced and competent members.
6.00 .79 High
It is important that the CSR manager is actively involved in the decision-making process to help in executing CSR at the society level.
5.95 .93 High
The CSR manager should effectively measure and evaluate CSR activities that have already been implemented.
6.01 .81 High
Attitudes
Table 4 presents data pertaining to the perception of respondents on the CSR managers’
attitudes. Overall, they have a medium level of perception on attitudes of being a CSR
22
manager (M = 4.71, SD = .69). The highest perceived item on attitudes is “A business that
wishes to capture a favorable public image will have to show that it is socially responsible (M
= 5.65, SD = 1.31). The lowest perceived item on attitudes is “Business leaders are trained to
manage economic institutions (companies) and not to work effectively on social issues” (M =
3.79, SD = 1.95).
Table 4: Managers’ attitudes and related descriptive statistics
Description of Attitudes Mean SD Level Grand Mean
The involvement of a company in improving its community’s quality of life will also improve long-run profitability.
5.46 1.14 High 4.71
(Medium)
SD = .69
A company that wishes to capture a favorable public image will have to show that it is socially responsible.
5.65 1.31 High
The idea of social responsibility is needed to balance the company’s power and discourage irresponsible behavior.
5.34 1.24 High
Corporations are social institutions and as such must live up to society’s standards.
5.29 1.19 High
Efficient production of goods and services is no longer the only thing society expects from companies.
4.89 1.91 Medium
Involvement in socially responsible activities threatens a company by diverting time and money away from its primary business purpose.
4.03 2.07 Medium
A company that ignores social responsibility can obtain a competitive advantage over a company that does not.
4.19 1.92 Medium
It is unwise to allow a company to participate in social activities where there is no direct way to hold it accountable for its actions.
4.49 1.76 Medium
23
Business leaders are trained to manage economic institutions (companies) and not to work effectively on social issues.
3.79 1.95 Medium
4.71
(Medium)
SD = .69
Business already has too much social power and should not engage in social activities that might give it more such power.
4.02 2.14 Medium
Competencies
Table 5 shows data pertaining to the perception of respondents on the CSR managers’
competencies. Overall, they have a high opinion on the 10 items of competency in being a
CSR manager (M = 5.55, SD = .96). The highest perceived item on competency is “Let
people know when results are not up to expectations” (M = 5.83, SD = 1.19). The lowest
perceived item on competency is “Use the actual plan to manage CSR activities” (M = 5.29,
SD = 1.54).
24
Table 5: Managers’ competencies and related descriptive statistics
Description of Competency
Descriptive statistics Mean SD Level Grand
Mean
Involves other staff members in the planning process of CSR programs
5.11 1.50 High 5.55 (high) SD = .96
Use the actual plan to manage CSR activities 5.29 1.46 High
Makes CSR plans that are clear and realistic 5.51 1.27 High
Organizes and schedules the work of subordinates
5.39 1.36 High
Deals with higher priority problems and tasks first
5.48 1.43 High
Establishes effective and efficient procedures for getting work done
5.43 1.21 High
Able to leads others in exercising authority and control
5.60 1.07 High
Able to give commands and respect to others in the group
5.71 1.12 High
Conveys enthusiasm about meeting CSR objectives
5.63 1.29 High
Able to establish high standards of performance for subordinates
5.56 1.08 High
Conveys the attitude that everyone’s work is important
5.79 1.07 High
Converts decisions into group action 5.48 1.24 High
Distributes the workload evenly and fairly among the work group
5.57 1.21 High
Clearly explains the desired results when assigning CSR tasks
5.71 1.02 High
Sets a specific time for follow-up 5.67 1.13 High
25
Lets people know when results are not up to expectations
5.83 1.19 High
Table 6 presents the means of specific CSR orientations and the coefficients of
correlation among the perceived roles, attitudes, and competencies of CSR managers and the
respective CSR orientations. Respondents reported perceiving CSR orientations in the order
of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities (M = 6.21, SD = .70; M = 5.80,
SD = .89; M = 5.73, SD = 1.02; and M = 5.31; SD = 1.15). This clearly concurs with Carroll’s
(1991) pyramid in which economic responsibility is at the base and philanthropic
responsibility is at the top. The analysis further revealed that competency of CSR managers
was the only characteristic found to correlate positively and significantly with all the CSR
orientations of economic, legal, philanthropic, and ethical responsibilities (r = .18 to r = .67);
philanthropic responsibility and competency showed the highest correlation. This is
explained by the fact that the former is the oldest form of CSR known by Malaysian society
in general and specifically by CSR managers; ethical and legal responsibilities are the latest
forms of CSR orientations realized in Malaysian society.
26
Table 6: Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation matrix of variables
ECO = economic responsibilities, LEG = legal responsibilities, ETH = ethical responsibilities, PHI = philanthropic responsibilities, ROL = roles, ATT = attitudes, COM = competencies. * denotes p < .05 (two-tailed) .** denotes p < .01 (two-tailed).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this study, we investigated the perceived roles, attitudes, and competencies of CSR
managers in executing their CSR tasks as well as the relationships between these
characteristics and CSR orientations of economic, philanthropic, legal, and ethical
responsibilities in the Malaysian context. On the basis of this exploratory quantitative
analysis, we found that CSR managers clearly have high perceptions of roles, attitudes, and
competencies in CSR, which implies that they understand the vision and mission of CSR.
However, the competency of managers is the only behavioral characteristic found to correlate
positively and significantly with all CSR orientations of economic, philanthropic, legal, and
ethical responsibilities. Hence, we conclude that the CSR orientations perceived by managers
have the potential to predict their competency. This aspect of perception of managers on CSR
may guide their executives’ actions because competency is the basic cognitive quality that
should be possessed by an individual manager before the higher behaviors of attitudes and
roles, which in turn can be expected to shape corporation behavior and CSR performance.
According to Pedersen (2010), failing to grasp the mindsets of business practitioners, such as
CSR managers, makes it difficult to understand the ways in which firms respond to societal
demands.
Mean SD ROL ATT COM ECO LEG ETH PHI ROL 5.96 .62 ATT 4.71 .69 .04 COM 5.55 .96 .12 .13 ECO 6.21 .70 .10 .03 .18* LEG 5.80 .89 .01 .12 .42** .63** ETH 5.73 1.02 -.11 .12 .58** .56** .71** PHI 5.31 1.15 -.09 -.14 .67** .25** .53** .68**
27
An implication of this study to HRD is relevant to the fact that managers in CSR-
implementing companies are also responsible in bringing about a socially conscious HRD, to
use the words of Bierema and D’abundo (2004), in which the concept should be expanded to
activities beyond the organizations to the community. The appropriate level of roles, attitudes
and competencies are the prerequisite qualities of managers to have before they embark on
CSR practices involving the stakeholders. To that end, the companies should conduct some
in-house education on issues related to social consciousness (e.g. diversity training for
various types of stakeholders), and seeks socially, legally as well as ethically responsible
practices and policies when the practices are clearly profitable.
This study is limited to CSR managers’ perception of CSR orientations and their
relationships with characteristics of managers in terms of roles, attitudes, and competencies.
There is a need to investigate the potential of these characteristics of managers in predicting
the performance of the corporation in CSR including the extent to which CSR brings non-
formal education within the specific segments of CSR stakeholders, such as community at
large or school community. Evaluation on CSR programs involving CSR providers and
participants, such as students from public and private universities and recipients in the
community are suggested due to the importance of those participants in CSR chain and its
sustainability.
References
Abdul Rahim, R., Jalaludin, F. W., & Tajuddin, K. (2010). Consumer behaviour towards
corporate social responsibility in Malaysia. International Conference on Business and
Economic Research (ICBER) (pp. 1-17). Kuching: Conference Master. Retrieved
from http://www.internationalconference.com.my/past/icber2010.htm
28
Abdul Rashid, M.Z. & Abdullah, I. (1991). Managers’ attitudes towards corporate social
responsibility. Proceedings of Pan Pacific Conference, June, Kuala Lumpur, pp.218-
220.
Abdul Rashid, M.Z. & Ibrahim, S. (2002). Executive and management attitudes towards
corporate social responsibility in Malaysia. Corporate governance, 2 (4), 10-16.
Bierema L. L. & D'abundo, M. L. (2004). HRD with a conscience: practicing socially
responsible HRD. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23, (5) (September–
October 2004), 443–458.
Bursa Malaysia. (2006). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) framework for Malaysian
public listed companies. Kuala Lumpur.
Bytheway, A. & Lambert, R. (1998). Organisational competencies for harnessing IS/IT.
Retrieved on May 21, 2012 from
http://www.imbok.org/docs/CompetenciesGoodPracticeGuide.pdf
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. http://www.jstor.org/stable/257850
Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders, Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 39-
48.
Carroll, A. B. (1998). The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship. Business and Society
Review, 100(1), p. 1-7.
Chambers, E., Chapple, W., Moon, J., & Sullivan, M. (2003). CSR in Asia: A seven country
study of CSR website reporting. United Kingdom: International Centre for Corporate
Social Responsibility.
29
Chapple, W. & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-
country study of CSR web site reporting. Business & Society, 44 (4), December 2005
415-441. DOI: 10.1177/0007650305281658
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate
social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, (1), 92-117.
Cordano, M. and Frieze, I.H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental
managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 627-641.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
definitions’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15(1),
1–13.
Dusuki, A. W., & Dar, H. (2005). Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Corporate Social
Responsibility of Islamic Banks: Evidence from Malaysian Economy. 389-417.
Dusuki, A. W. (2006). Stakeholders' expectation towards corporate social responsibility of
Islamic Banks. International Accounting Conference III (INTAC 3) (pp. 1-26). Kuala
Lumpur: IIUM.
Egri , C.P. & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector:
values, leadership styles, and context of environmental leaders and their
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 571-604.
Fernández, E., Junquera, B. & Ordiz, M. (2006). Managers’ Profile in Environmental
Strategy: A Review of the Literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 13, 261–274.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New
York Times Magazine, 13 September, 32–33.
30
Garriga, E. & Mele, D. (2004) Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping and
territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51-74.
Gioia, D. A. (1999). Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing’,
Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 228–232.
Grover, R., & Vriens, M. (2006). The handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and
future advances. Thousand Oak: Sage Publication. Inc.
Hemingway, C. A. & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 50: 33–44.
Hung, H. (2011). Directors’ roles in corporate social responsibility: A stakeholder
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 103:385–402 .DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-
0870-5
Ismail, M. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and its role in community development: An
international perspective. The Journal of International Research, 2(9), 199-209.
Jawahar, I. M. & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An
Organizational Life Cycle Approach, Academy of Management Review 26(3), 397–
415.
Juechter, W. M., Caroline, F., Alford, R. J. (1998). Five conditions for high performance
cultures. Training and Development, 52(5), 63-67.
Lee, P.M-D. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its
evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews,
10(1), 53-73, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00226.x
Lu, J. Y. & Castka, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in Malaysia: Experts’ views
and perspectives. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
16, 146-154.
31
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Guest editors’ introduction.
Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management
Studies, 43:1, 1-18.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts,
Academy of Management Review, 22(4),853-886.
National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) (2010). New Economic Model for Malaysia –
Part 1. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad. Available at
http://www.neac.gov.my
Nik Ahmad, N. N., Sulaiman, M., & Siswantoro, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility
disclosure in Malaysia: An Analysis of Annual Reports of KLSE Listed Companies.
IIUM Journal of Economic and Management , 11 (1), 1-37.
Nik Ahmad, N. N., & Abdul Rahim, N. A. (2005). Awareness of Corporate social
responsibility among selected companies in Malaysia: An Exploratory Note.
Malaysian Accounting Review , 4 (1), 11-24.
Mohd Ghazali, N. A. (2008). Voluntary disclosure in Malaysian corporate annual reports:
Views of stakeholders. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(4), 504-516. doi:
10.1108/17471110810909902
Pedersen, E. R.( 2010). Modelling CSR: How Managers Understand the Responsibilities of
Business towards Society, Journal of Business Ethics, 91,155–166 _ Springer DOI
10.1007/s10551-009-0078-0
Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU) (2010). Economic transformation
program. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Performance Management and Delivery Unit
(PEMANDU), Prime Minister’s Department.
32
Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth Malaysia). Retrieved from
http://www.foei.org/en/who-we-are/member-directory/groups-by-region/asia-
pacific/malaysia.html on 1 June, 2012
Secchi, D. (2007). Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social
responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 4, 347-373.
Siwar, C., & Md Harizan, S. H. (2009). A study on corporate social responsibility practices
amongst business organizations in Malaysia. Bangi, Selangor: Institute for
Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Siwar, C., & Hossain, T. M. (2009). An analysis of Islamic CSR concept and the opinions of
Malaysian managers. Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal , 20(3), 290-298. doi: 10.1108/14777830910950685
Sobczak, A., Debucquet, G. & Havard, C. (2006). The impact of higher education on
students’ and young managers’ perception of companies and CSR: an exploratory
analysis. Corporate Governance. 6 (4), 463-474, DOI 10.1108/14720700610689577
United Nations Global Compact (2009), “Overview of the UN Global Compact” available at
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html (accessed 12 December
2008).
United Nations Development Programs (UNDP) (2011). Human Development Report 2011 -
Sustainability and equality: A better future for all. New York: United Nations
Development Programs (21th Anniversary Edition).
Visser, W. (2008) Corporate social responsibility in developing countries, in A. Crane, A.
McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. Siegel, eds., The Oxford Handbook of CSR,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp.473-499.