Filling the Empty Shell

Filling the Empty Shell. The Public

Debate on CSR in Austria as a

Paradigmatic Example of a Political

DiscourseBernhard Mark-Ungericht

Richard Weiskopf

ABSTRACT. Instead of essentializing and defining what

CSR ‘‘is’’, we analyze CSR as a political discourse in

which different actors struggle to fill the empty shell of

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with a legitimate

interpretation. In this paper we take the current debate on

CSR in Austria as an example to demonstrate how this

debate is shaped by changes in the greater socio-economic

environment. We suggest that this debate might be par-

adigmatic for the development of CSR in the European/

International context. We argue that the debate and the

political moves concerning an implicit or an explicit

concept of CSR are rooted in a more fundamental

question: the societal (re-)embedding or disembedding of

companies.

KEY WORDS: corporate social responsibility (implicit

and explicit), political discourses, embedding, disembedding

Introduction: A new socio-political

framework for the debate of CSR?

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR)

has a long and varied history (Boatright, 2003; Car-

roll, 1999; Mason, 1974). The debates moved

through various stages of intensity, provoked by

corporate scandals, unethical business practices,

changes in the public opinion about specific societal

aspects and changes in the overall political, economic

and social frameworks. But the point of departure

seems to be the same: Bowen’s (1953) argument that

corporations are vital centers of power and decision-

making and that the actions of these firms touch the

lives of citizens at many points is still valid. In the age

of a global economy, corporations have further ex-

panded in size, power and reach. As a result of this

increase in corporate power, we witness an intensi-

fication of the debate on CSR on two levels today.

First, we see again a growing interest in the academic

community (e.g. Andriof and McIntosh, 2001; Crane

and Matten, 2004; Habisch et al., 2005). Second, we

witness an increasing debate within political institu-

tions on the national and the EU-levels.1 Quite a

number of authors have pointed to the fact that the

main topics of CSR have altered in course of time.

From labour rights, to regional responsibility, envi-

Bernhard Mark-Ungericht is a Professor of Management at the

Department of International Management at the University of

Graz. His research focuses on strategies and practices of com-

panies in the context of globalization. Currently he is working

on a research project which concentrates on the constructions of

the concept of ‘‘CSR’’. Bernhard is interested in alternative

models of enterprises that might realise societal responsibility.

He is the author of Zwischen Konflikt und Kooperation.

Multistakeholder-Dialog als betriebswirtschaftliche Her-

ausforderung (Munchen/Mering, Hampp Verlag 2005).

Richard Weiskopf is Associate Professor in the School of Man-

agement (Department of Organization and Learning) at the

University of Innsbruck. His research focuses on the pro-

blematization of organizational and managerial practices. He

is particularly interested in poststructuralist philosophies and

their potential for critical analysis and rethinking of organi-

zations and organizing. Currently he is working on a project

funded by the Austrian Sience Funds (FWF) on ethical and

aesthetic practices of organizing in the so called ‘‘Creative

Industries’’. He is editor of Menschenregierungskunste.

Anwendungen poststrukturalistischer Analyse auf Manage-

ment und Organisation (Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag

2003). A cowritten book (with G. Krell) on strategies of

organizing passion hast just appeared: Die Anordung der

Leidenschaften (Wien, Passagen Verlag 2006).

Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 70:285–297 � Springer 2006DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9111-8

ronmental protection, and social problems (unem-

ployment, problems in urban centers, minorities

etc.), the areas of societal responsibility have shifted

and expanded over the decades. These changes in the

debate of CSR indicate two important aspects: first,

that neither an established theoretical core for CSR

nor a ‘‘natural’’ catalogue of areas of responsibility

does exist. Second, that CSR discourses are always

embedded in specific socio-political frameworks.From this point of view, it is more plausible to

analyze the discursive constructions of CSR, to focus

on the differences between them and to reveal the

positions of interest that are immanent in the images,

perceptions and debates on CSR. Today, (public)

debates on CSR are structured around topics that are

different from those discussed 10, 20 or 30 years ago;

they reveal new lines of conflict and they are rooted

in a different socio-political environment that con-

stitutes the framework of the current debate.

As a matter of fact, globalization2 has changed

the social contract between business and society. And,

therefore, a new dimension of corporate responsibility

entered public awareness: responsibilities which derive

from a global economic transformation and global

corporate activities. Three characteristics of economic

globalization are particularly significant with respect to

the debate around CSR:

• The profusion of regulatory gaps or regula-

tion in a neo-liberal sense

• The possibility to pass on responsibility

• The dis-embedding of economic decisions

from a rule-based regional, local, or national

social contexts

Regulatory instruments for internationally active

enterprises are largely missing. In keeping with the

dominant doctrine in economic policy, hardly any

attempts are currently being made at a global level to

create a counterweight to this expanded playing field

of international corporations. On the other hand, so-

called ‘‘self-regulation’’ of individual corporations

and branches is increasingly called for – a self-reg-

ulation which, however, can be neither controlled

nor sanctioned. This profusion of regulatory gaps

allows economic (and political) actors to relinquish

responsibility. Responsibility is delegated to (legally

independent) suppliers/sub-contractors; it is made

undetectable inside complex international procure-

ment and production networks, or it is made relative

with the justification of tough international com-

petition. As noted by several authors (e.g. Altvater

and Mahnkopf, 1997; Balanya et al. 2000, Beck

1997, Dicken 1998, Die Gruppe von Lissabon

1997), one of the consequences of this relinquishing

and diffusion of responsibility in the global eco-

nomic field is the social disembedding of economic

decisions and institutions.

The dominant discourse on globalization – in

which the current debate of CSR is embedded –

constitutes not only economic decisions and prac-

tices, but must also necessarily include a discourse,

which provides the legitimization of these processes:

the discourse of neo-liberalism, which is character-

ized by a specific set of arguments and concepts:

– Freedom for economic activities is given pri-

ority. Governments should not intervene in

economic decision-making and should break

down barriers to international economic activ-

ity. Governmental regulations are to be re-

duced and industry is to be ‘‘regulated’’ by

voluntary self-regulation.

– Economics is constructed as the leading science;

from this background ‘‘unjustified’’ and ‘‘illegit-

imate’’ encroachments from other areas such as

politics or ethics are rejected. The ‘‘market’’ is

seen as a prime organizing principle of social

life. (see e.g. Brockling et al., 2000)

– Competition and competitiveness are key-con-

cepts. Everything has to be subordinated under

the goal of competitiveness. Activities and

decisions are justified only insofar as they can

prove that they contribute to enhanced com-

petitiveness. An ideology of the ‘‘survival of

the fittest’’ in an ‘‘economic war’’ (see e.g.

D‘Aveni, 1994) legitimates social inequality.

(see Hayek von, 1981)

Neo-liberal terms such as ‘‘economic freedom’’,

‘‘competition,’’ and ‘‘efficiency’’ penetrate all other

aspects of social life. And of course concepts of

corporate responsibility are also shaped and influ-

enced by this dominant view. This is highly visible,

for example, in positioning papers of the EU

(Europaische Kommission, 2001), where CSR is

regarded as an individual and voluntary instrument

to enable economic growth and of European

286 Bernhard Mark-Ungericht and Richard Weiskopf

competitiveness. But interestingly, the initiative on

the EU-level also reflects and mentions a quest for

transparency, accountability and standards. A publi-

cation of the EU Council (Rat der Europaischen

Union, 2003) argues, for example, that CSR prac-

tices have to be ‘‘trustworthy’’ and have to include

subcontractors and suppliers. This ambiguous des-

ignation gave rise to attempts from industry’s side as

well as from civil society organizations’ side to

influence public opinion and political decision-

making processes on CSR. It was against this

background, that the Austrian Federal Economic

Chamber and the Federation of Austrian Industry

end of the year 2002 founded (with support of the

conservative Austrian Government) the ‘‘CSR-

Austria-Initiative’’. In the following chapter, we will

portray3 the concept of CSR favoured by this Ini-

tiative and contrast it with the CSR-concept of the

NGO/Labour-Organizations coalition, which

emerged as a direct response.4 We will further argue

that these concepts should not be seen as the result of

a specific and single national debate only.

CSR as a political discourse and the debate

in Austria: Worlds apart

Specific concepts of CSR reflect differing positions

of interest, differing views of economic behaviour

and its aims, and differing positions about what

constitutes a fair and just society and the role of

business within it. As political discourses they attempt

to shape and influence the public understanding of

responsibility associated with corporations and to

define the ‘‘legitimate’’ concepts of responsibility

and justice; they attempt to delimit the spaces of

responsibility and determine the ‘‘adequate’’ instruments

to realize this specific form of responsibility. The

positions on CSR from employer’s organizations on

the one side and from civil society and labour

organizations on the other side construct two

obviously antagonistic CSR-worlds, which will be

portrayed in the following paragraphs.

CSR-Austria: The world of the employer organizations

The foundation and official Goals of CSR – Austria

The already mentioned socio-political transformations

and the first attempts at the EU level to approach the

topic of regulation and responsible corporate behaviour

in the global and European realms led both employer

organizations in Austria to raise the issue of CSR

themselves in early 2002. In cooperation with the

Ministry for Labour and Economy, the Federation of

Austrian Industry and the Austrian Federal Economic

Chamber instituted the initiative ‘‘CSR-Austria’’ at the

end of 2002. With this initiative the following goals are

officially pursued: the general goal of CSR-AUSTRIA

is ‘‘to initiate a pro-active CSR policy and with that, to

strengthen Austrian companies and Austria as an economic

location’’ (Deuerlein et al., 2003. p. 4, translation and

italics our own). This general goal is made more precise

in the publications of CSR-AUSTRIA and in inter-

views with representatives of sponsoring organizations.

The following interrelated goals are at the center:

• Direct image-building to the outside world5

• Appeal to member companies to publicize

their CSR activities more forcefully

• Representing the competitive advantage for

companies when they act in a socially

responsible way

• Trustbuilding as a precondition for economic

success and growth

Cornerstones of the CSR-Austria concept

An article in one periodical that is associated closely

with the employer organizations designates the

cornerstones of this discourse, which will be dealt

with in more detail later. This article, intended for a

wider public, glorifies the Austrian companies of the

past and draws a connection to contemporary Aus-

trian enterprises. As proof for the statement ‘‘social

commitment has a tradition in Austria’’, the maga-

zine cites the example of a textile industrialist in the

19th century:

‘‘The School History in Tattendorf records: ‘Mr Nicolaus

Dumba, provincial legislator, ‘‘Herrenhaus’’ member

and factory owner in Tattendorf, has made a present to the

community Tattendorf of the newly constructed and fully

furnished schoolhouse, built at a cost of 7000 Gulden.’ In

addition, according to the School History, the industrialist

provided annually for a Christmas tree and presented the

schoolchildren with fruit, bakery, and toys: The poorest

also received clothing, textiles, and reading materials for

young people. A further donation made it possible for the

school classes to take a field trip and for the school and its

Filling the Empty Shell 287

library to obtain learning materials. He had an equipment

house built for the volunteer fire department and donated

an altar, a tabernacle and a glass window to the village

church. With all that, the philanthropist went down in

history as a collector and patron of art.’’ (No author

2003, p.46f, our transl.)

This historical foray into the CSR concept of the

19th century is not a coincidence. Central elements

of this conception of CSR re-emerge in the current

CSR-Austria discourse. The business-led CSR-

Austria discourse constitutes and structures CSR

around the following characteristics:

1 Voluntarism

2 CSR as Win–Win-relation/competitive advantage

3 Emphasis on the local

4 Little relativity to the Core-Business and

emphasis on philanthropy

Voluntarism. The most important aspect in the CSR-

Austria concept is the emphasis on the voluntary

character of CSR. Every attempt at establishing rules

is rejected out of hand. This is even true for content,

minimum standards, controls and sanctions. CSR-

Austria stresses that no concessions can be assumed

from CSR activities and that they in no way con-

stitute a basis for further legal development. The

reasons given for this are the necessary flexibility of

the companies and the differences between the

companies and the branches. The president of the

Austrian Federal Economic Chamber states:

‘‘The discussions about CSR at this stage are still too

diverse, depending on branch and the situation of the

companies.... Considering the variety of enterprises,

and here especially in the area of small and medium-

sized companies, a universal CSR concept can and

may not exist.... Neither should the process lead to a

new pertinent rule of law. It is in the nature of the

thing, that the voluntary (decisions) of the company is

a basic principle here. Everything in the currently held

discussion that leads to an enforced measure is dam-

aging to the process as a whole.’’ (Leitl, 2003, p. 13,

our transl.)

In this way, the principle of voluntarism is quasi-

naturalized and declared as a pre-condition in the

perception of social responsibility.

CSR as win/win relationship and competitive advantage.

A second core element of the CSR concept of

CSR-Austria is the consistent portrayal of CSR as a

win/win relationship. This message is directed to-

ward both the public and the Austrian companies. It

is signalled to the public that CSR instruments

contribute to competitive advantage and that this is

to the best for all. Companies, on the other hand, are

given the signal that publicly communicating com-

pany activities that correspond to such an under-

standing of CSR (very broadly defined here)6 brings

competitive advantages.7 In this way, CSR is sub-

ordinated to economic reasoning.

One theme that is not addressed throughout the

CSR-Austria discourse is the conflict between eth-

ical responsibility and the imperative of competi-

tiveness, in other words an aporetic situation in

which a responsible ‘‘true’’ decision in an ethical

sense is required (Derrida, 1992, 2000; Jones et al.,

2005, pp. 121–124; Willmott, 1998; Weiskopf,

2004). In the CSR-Austria world, there is no room

for contradiction:

‘‘economic success and responsible behaviour in the

society’s sense are not a contradiction. On the contrary.

Where the two meet, an advantage of location springs

up for Austria’s companies.’’ (CSR-Austria, 2003,

p. 5, our transl.)

For the potential case of conflict, economic ratio-

nality is declared as a basis for a good and responsible

decision:

‘‘Economic success is the foundation that can secure both

social cohesion and a liveable environment. It is the

successful companies that supply the people with the

necessary goods and services for a life in security, wealth,

and dignity. In order for companies to be able to fulfill

this function, they must be competitive and profitable.’’

(ibid, p. 6 our transl.)

Emphasis on the local. It can justifiably be supposed

that the CSR-Austria Initiative primarily represents

a reaction to the first tentative attempts to regulate

international corporate activities. However this

reaction apparently emphasizes the local and blinds

out the more international dimension of CSR. A

majority of the ‘‘best practice’’ examples that are

presented emphasize the immediate vicinity of the


company. No concrete obligation that transgresses

national boundaries is mentioned with the exception

of the general statement: ‘‘The companies

acknowledge the human rights, the adherence to all

local (sic!) regulations, they speak out against child

labour’’. (CSR-Austria, 2003, p. 10, our transl.) No

reference is made to international economic activi-

ties such as procurement, investment, sales, pro-

duction and their ethical challenges and problems:

Core ILO norms for labour and OECD principles

are referred to, yet there are no recognizable initia-

tives to grant these norms a greater degree of obli-

gation. International responsibility is replaced in the

CSR mission statement with the task of ‘‘helping to

improve the situation in other countries’’. (CSR-

Austria, 2003, p. 10, our transl.)

Little relativity to the Core-Business and emphasis on

philanthropy. It is conspicuous that the CSR dis-

course of CSR-Austria seems barely directed to-

ward the concrete behaviour of enterprises or

toward changes in that behaviour. Rather than at

the companies, the CSR initiative of employer

organizations is targeted at communicating and

disseminating a specific image of CSR and the role

of companies in our society as sketched within that

picture. This CSR picture attempts to establish

what can be expected of companies, but also what

cannot be expected of them. Two aspects impress

on this picture: first the emphasis on the principle

of voluntary action as opposed to the principle of

obligatory adherence to ecological and social

minimum standards; second, the stronger emphasis

of CSR as a general responsibility for societal

challenges and problems, rather than a CSR con-

cept that is focused on the mode of organizing

core business activities. CSR is represented as that

area of social involvement above and beyond the

actual business activity, but at the same time,

‘‘normal’’ management activities (such as the

opening of new market and customer segments,

the continuing education/qualification of employ-

ees, offering places of employment) are packaged as

CSR activities.

The neo-liberal discourse structures the respon-

sibility from the inside outwards. Here, the company

is to be organized less according to a bureaucratic

model, at whose core stands adherence to rules, ra-

ther it is to be constructed as ‘‘island of superior

adaptability’’ (Bauman, 2001) that gains flexibility by

‘‘using disengagement and the art of escape as its

major tools’’ (ibid., p. 14). Voluntariness, individu-

alism, the absence of regulatory mechanisms, the

logic of both competition and the market are the

central components of conception of CSR framed in

the neo-liberal discourse.

The CSR-world of labour organizations and NGOs

in Austria

When the employer organizations founded the

CSR-Austria-Initiative with the support of the

conservative government, a coalition was formed

between labour organizations, the umbrella organi-

zation of Austrian development/solidarity groups

(Arbeitsgemeinschaft Entwicklungszusammenarbeit

– AGEZ) and environmental organizations, as well

as several individual NGOs such as Amnesty Inter-

national. The purpose of this coalition was to reflect

critically on the CSR process of business organiza-

tions and to work out an alternative CSR position.

This CSR-Position of the civil society distinguishes

itself clearly from that of the employer organizations

in both the starting points and the criteria attributed

to CSR.

A different world as point of departure

The NGOs and labour organizations view the

process of globalization as a shift of power in

favour of internationally active corporations. The

economic exploitation of these new opportunities –

according to labour organizations and NGOs –

often comes at the cost of groups in weaker

positions. When employer organizations pick up on

topics such as CSR it is viewed with scepticism and

interpreted as PR responses to a far-reaching loss of

society’s trust in the economy and corporations as a

consequence of scandals. Beyond this, it is seen as a

danger that CSR concepts of employer organiza-

tions correspond to the tendency toward self-reg-

ulation (see Bundesarbeitskammer, 2001, 2002) and

especially that they are directed toward the pre-

vention of obligatory social and ecological mini-

mum standards for international business activities.

From this completely different starting position,

different and partly contrary cornerstones of their

CSR conception arise.


Cornerstones of the civil society view of CSR

The CSR position of the civil society and

labour organizations are founded on the following

cornerstones:

• obligatory minimum standards instead of vol-

untary actions,

• the core business as the central area of CSR

work and participation of the stakeholders,

• the possibility of sanctions for breaking rules,

• transparency.

Obligatory international minimum standards instead of

voluntary actions. At the center of the civil, society

CSR-discourse is the (re-)organization of (interna-

tional) corporate activity in such a way as to

minimize their negative impact on others (employ-

ees, local communities, environment). The CSR

conception of these organizations assumes, therefore,

that social obligations toward employees, the

environment and others affected by corporate

activity must be and stay regulated in a mandatory

way. International standards in human rights, mini-

mum standards for labour rights, and international

environmental law are, therefore, seen as binding for

internationally active corporations.8 From the

viewpoint of civil society organizations, voluntary

actions can only refer to the voluntary overtaking of

supplemental obligations; they cannot replace these

fundamental norms.9 In this respect, this position

stands in a crass opposition to the position of

employers, who emphasize that no obligations can

be derived from CSR activities. A second disparity

arises – this time to the win/win conception of CSR

– in that the adherence to human rights standards,

labour rights and the protection of the environment

should not be left to the discretion of managers, in

other words, these obligations must be kept to,

regardless of the competitive position of the

company.

Another difference that arises is the specific con-

ception of the space of responsibility of business

activities: the CSR conception of civil society ac-

tions organizations emphasizes the international

dimension of CSR much more strongly. Whereas

the CSR mission statement of employers only

superficially mentions, the goal ‘‘to help improve the

situation in other countries’’ (CSR-Austria, 2003,

p. 10), the NGOs and labour representatives de-

mand social and ecological co-responsibility for the

entire chain of economic activities. This includes

that companies can be made responsible for working

conditions of their sub-contractors.10

Core business and participation of those affected by busi-

ness-decisions. In contrast to the CSR concept of

employers, two further aspects are moved more

strongly to the center of the civil society’s concep-

tion: the view of core business processes as a central

field of CSR measures and the right to participate for

those who are affected by management decisions.

The emphasis on core business activities as a primary

area for application of CSR is evident in the CSR-

rules called for by the NGO work group ‘‘CSR’’:

The rules concerning labour relations are based

primarily on the ILO conventions. For the area of

environmental protection, the working paper sees

the necessity of publicizing ecological goals to be

met, their continual control and environmental

checks through an independent agency. In the area

of combatting corruption, the draft sets down the

obligation of companies not to offer, demand or

promise bribes, not to make illegal donations to

applicants, public offices or political organizations

and to make donations to public offices or political

organizations public. (see NGO-Arbeitskreis

‘‘CSR’’ 2003)

The position of the civil society is expressed in

these rules that a company advertising CSR to the

public must fulfil social and ecological minimum

demands on its management practices. A second

aspect of these minimum demands on CSR is

allowing for the participation of those affected by

corporate activities. CSR is viewed as a ‘‘participa-

tion-oriented concept’’ (Sallmutter, 2003, p. 17, our

transl.) which, among other things, must secure, that

interests and rights of employees, local populations

and indigenous groups are taken into consideration

(see NGO-Arbeitskreis ‘‘CSR’’ 2003).

Sanctions. From the standpoint of civil society NGOs

and labour organizations, a rule bound CSR also

includes enforceability and the possibility of sanc-

tions. The labour organizations and NGOs assume

that companies will only consider societal responsi-

bility when forced to – whether by the market/

consumers or legal authority – or when there is a

promise of economic advantages in the sense of cost


savings. From this perspective, CSR minimum

standards therefore are to become a factor in business

calculations through either threat of sanctions or

positive economic incentives. Without this prospect

of calculation and without sanctioning for failure to

meet obligations, companies would find themselves

caught in a prisoner’s dilemma (see Bundesarbeits-

kammer, 2001, p. 4).

Transparency. For the civil society organizations the

credibility of CSR is dependent on the degree of

transparency and conceivability that can be estab-

lished with respect to the goals and criteria of social

responsibility and their actual adherence (see

Tumpel, 2003, p. 21). Therefore, a uniform and

standardized CSR codex is called for as well as the

control through an independent monitoring agency,

which represents the various stakeholders. Beyond

this, developing a uniform scheme for company

information is demanded in order to make

companies comparable.11 Without transparency in

standards and the monitoring of adherence, CSR

appears to them as ‘‘a mere PR campaign without

substance’’ (Schachner, 2003, p. 18, our transl.).

This CSR conception is also more globally ori-

ented than the relatively locally oriented CSR

conception of the employer organizations. It also

concentrates more on a reorganization of the core

activities of companies than on individual philan-

thropic projects. This picture of CSR is more di-

rected at homogenizing and standardizing CSR in

order to establish it in such a way as to make com-

parison, testing and sanctioning possible.

The CSR concepts of employers and civil society

reflect different positions of interest and rest on

different views of the world and society. They are to

be seen as strategies in a field of socio-political

conflict that aim at a reformation or a (dynamic)

preservation of the status quo.

The Austrian case as an example

of a paradigmatic change in European CSR?

The significance of the Austrian case in the European

context

Habisch et al. (2005, p. 4) describe society as a

‘‘historically grown balance of three dominant clusters

of institutions: government, civil society and market,

represented by commercial organizations’’. We agree

with Habisch and Jonker who argue that the present

CSR debate across Europe indicates ‘‘a fundamental

transition of the long taken-for-granted balance

between those clusters of institutions is taking place

(p. 4). Further, we agree that the ‘‘present CSR

debate across Europe reveals that this institutional

society balance is being questioned’’ (p. 3).

This questioning, we suggest, should also be seen

as an active and strategic attempt to (re)define cor-

porate responsibility and this balance of institutions.

Thereby the CSR-discourse of the business com-

munity is itself an important medium of this

(re)definition and questioning, in particular as it

represents what Jones et al. (2005, pp. 122–123) call

a ‘‘strategic or marketing approach’’ in which ‘‘the

goals and objectives of the organization are the

central focus’’.

The Austrian case is, of course, as any case a

singularity. However, we suggest, that its signifi-

cance goes far beyond a single national debate on

CSR, emerging against a specific historical, political

or cultural background (see Habisch et al., 2005).

Our thesis is that the Austrian discussion is para-

digmatic for the struggle and the development of

CSR in a European/international context. For

decades, the Austrian national business system

(Whitley, 1992) was (comparable to the Scandina-

vian business systems) characterized by a strong tri-

partite approach. In particular, the experience of

civil war between Social Democrats and the Con-

servatives in the time between the two World Wars

led to the emergence of the so-called ‘‘Sozialpart-

nership’’ (Social Partnership). This social and polit-

ical arrangement meant that a wide range of policy

issues, ranging from prices and incomes policy to

consumer rights and education etc., were decided on

the basis of a consensus between government,

business and labour representatives. Consensus was

the main political instrument and participation

legitimized the societal obligations in they eyes of

the business community. In recent years, however,

this approach was more and more questioned by the

business community. Arguably, this shift not only

reflects a specific national experience: When ‘‘CSR-

Austria’’ was founded the presidents of the Austrian

employers organizations played important roles in

the European employers associations: The president


of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber was (is)

at the same time the president of the European

umbrella organization and the then president of the

Federation of Austrian Industry, was concurrently

vice-president of UNICE, the European employers’

confederation. Furthermore, we can see the emer-

gence and growth of business-led CSR-initiatives at

the European level (see Matten and Moon, 2005,

p. 343). There are many signs which indicate that

the CSR-initiatives of the European business com-

munity represent a concerted strategic action,

whereby the attempted political impact is far more

important than the goal of taking over social and

societal responsibility. The ‘‘CSR-Germany’’ ini-

tiative for example, which was launched in

December 2005 by the two main German business

associations (BDI – Federation of German Industries

– and BDA – Federation of German Employers)

follows the Austrian CSR-initiative in its argu-

mentation and even choice of words (see http://

www.csrgermany.de).12

From implicit to explicit CSR – form embedding

to disembedding

This tendency and the associated concepts of CSR

can be further illuminated by the distinction be-

tween ‘‘explicit’’ and ‘‘implicit’’ forms of CSR,

which has been introduced by Matten and Moon

(2005). According to Matten and Moon, ‘‘implicit

CSR’’ is embedded in the business–society–gov-

ernment relations within a political system. It is

characterized by strong norms, participatory con-

sensus-seeking practices and mandatory corporate

responsibilities towards society that are implicitly

codified in norms, standards and legal frameworks.

‘‘Explicit CSR’’ represents a departure from this

concept of CSR. Here, the focus is on the corpo-

ration and corporate policies. Explicit CSR refers to

voluntary, self-interest driven policies and pro-

grammes seeking to address issues that are perceived

by a company or its stakeholders as part of their

responsibility. There is ample evidence that the

business community in Europe strongly favours the

concept of explicit CSR and that this concept is

spreading all over Europe.

These two concepts of CSR reflect attempts to

re-embed or dis-embed corporations in society. In

his study on the economic development in the 19th

century, Polanyi (1944/1990) showed how the

emergence of capitalism destroyed or threatened to

destroy existing feudalistic social relationships and

the social and natural living space of the population.

This ‘‘Great Transformation’’ expressed itself as a

process in which capitalism created new, unregu-

lated markets, including free markets for labour, land

and capital, which were all treated as commodities.

Whereas earlier the exchange within markets was

embedded in social norms this relationship between

market and society was reversed. For Polanyi, the

agent of re-embedding was the nation state. This

perspective – which provides a foundation for the

argumentation of NGOs and labour organizations –

assumes that the economy must be politically tamed

in order to hinder its destructive forces or its

destructive tendency to break free of bonds. The

situation today of course is different to the one

analyzed by Polanyi. Yet, as some authors have ar-

gued the processes of disembedding seem to be re-

vived or even accelerated today. Both the rising

power of organizations (Perrow, 1991), the processes

of economization and the increase in market-ori-

ented behaviour on a global scale seems to con-

tribute to this process (Chomsky, 1998; Forrester

1996). The regulated nation state has been super-

seded by globalization. In the wake of globalization,

areas of global opportunity arose for companies

which are largely unregulated, or, in light of their

freedom, re-regulated. Altvater and Mahnkopf

(1997, 90ff) speak here of a ‘‘disembedding global’’,

in which the world market rids itself of social bonds.

This is the starting point of the NGOs:

Obligatory rules are seen as necessary protection of

the weak and as a protection for enterprises acting

in a responsible way. Civil Society organizations

want to achieve a re-embedding of internationally

operating companies, by binding corporate activi-

ties to internationally accepted norms and standards

(fundamental environmental standards, human

rights and labour rights), by establishing process

rules for business decisions (transparency and par-

ticipation) and by insisting on the possibility of

sanctioning when companies fail to adhere to these

rules and standards. They follow an implicit

concept of CSR.

The starting point of the employer-organizations’

CSR position is a fundamentally different one.


Arguments are made in terms of imperatives of

competition and competitiveness rather than in

terms of grievances of a global, deregulated econ-

omy.13 Obligatory rules are seen as inadequate and

restricting the necessary flexibility. CSR for them

means that companies have to define for themselves

– in a principally monological way – where their

responsibility begins and ends. Consequently com-

panies ideally identify themselves where they do not

meet the standards set by themselves:

‘‘CSR should not be an enforced measure, rather it

should be based on voluntary action. Each company

(must) find. out for itself in which framework involve-

ment is possible and meaningful.’’ (Autischer 2003,

p. 19, our transl.)

‘‘... It is for an individual company or industry sector-to

decide what the most useful benchmark codes are and to

develop their own understanding of how business prin-

ciples relate to external codes/guidelines, the framework

of UN values and societal expectations. (ICC 2000,

p. 3)

‘‘External verification of business processes and perfor-

mance other than financial performance - in areas such as

health, safety, environmental or more recently social

performance - is still a relatively new practice. ...

external verification should be left to the choice of

individual companies. ... ‘‘The method and extend of

internal monitoring of compliance with its business

principles, and of external reporting of performance, also

have to be a. matter for the company itself.’’ (ICC,

2000, p. 3f)

The same organizations which create CSR-Initia-

tives at the same time make very clear that they are

not interested in the development or maintainance of

a mandatory legal framework in the fields of human

and labour rights.14 Following neo-liberal logic and

its emphasis on corporate freedom, in an ideological

turn, obligatory rules/norms are constructed as, do-

ing injustice to enterprises. In this way, ‘‘CSR’’ is

turned into a management tool to block attempts to

establish the mandatory international regulation of

companies’ activities. This became evident when

business organizations like ICC or USCIB opposed

the drafted UN-Norms on Transnational corpora-

tions regarding Human Rights:

‘‘We have a problem with the premise and the principle

that the norms are based on. These norms clearly seek to

move away from the realm of voluntary initiatives ...’’

Stefano Bertasi, Managing Director ICC zitiert nach

CSR Europe o. J.); ‘‘Let‘s face it ... the norms are a

radical innovation. They purport to make private

business liable for human rights violations. This is a

revolutionary step.’’ (USCIB Vicepresident Timo-

thy Deal (Deal, 2004))

‘‘The International Chamber of Commerce and Inter-

national Organization of Employers have opposed

adoption of the Norms ...’’, ‘‘... the binding and

legalistic approach of the draft Norms will not meet

diverse circumstances of companies and will discourage

innovation and creativity in addressing human rights

issues...’’ (USCIB, 2003)

Their goals seem to be the preservation of a weakly

regulated status quo, as the process of dis-embedding

is equated with corporate freedom, efficiency and

productive competition, or conversely, the costs that

would arise from stronger regulation are viewed as a

disadvantage to competitiveness.

It is not a coincidence that the trend of companies

towards explicit CSR exactly comes at a time when

the public’s trust in the economy began to decrease

or when an increasing number of demands were

being placed on companies with international supply

chains. Corporations must increasingly meet various

expectations and are forced to produce legitimacy.

According to Brunsson (1989), organizations handle

inconsistent expectations with double standards or

double talk:

‘‘To talk inconsistently is not difficult..... Nor is it

particularly difficult to make inconsistent deci-

sions, at least so long as the decisions are not

implemented, as is by no means always neces-

sary.’’ (Brunsson, 1989, p. 26)

The Organization of Hypocrisy avails itself of dif-

ferent strategies: influencing the public opinion,

symbolization of altruism and exploiting a ‘‘futures

approach’’ (Brunsson, 1989), which makes promises

about positive future developments and actions in

order to calm and tranquilize the public. All three

strategies can be identified in the CSR-discourse of

the employer organizations. In this respect, they


tend to contribute to further dis-embedding, since

societal expectations remain without effect on the

actual behaviour of economic actors. Effective

mechanisms for sanctioning are circumvented or

subverted. For this reason, the business led explicit

CSR concept is to be viewed as an attempt to

influence public opinion and European institutions

and is a strategy for the dynamic preservation of the

largely unregulated status quo at the global level.15

Conclusion

In this paper we have analysed CSR as a political

discourse that reflects changes and challenges in the

greater socio-economic environment and in which

different actors struggle to fill the empty shell of

‘‘CSR’’ with a legitimate interpretation and thereby

create and delimit the space of responsibility. At the

example of the Austrian CSR debate, we have

shown how ‘‘CSR’’ is constructed differently by

societal actors and we have argued that the respec-

tive CSR-concepts reflect Matten’s and Moon’s

distinction between an explicit and an implicit

CSR.

Given that there are no unquestionable given

foundations, from which one could derive what

CSR ‘‘is’’, the analysis of CSR as a political dis-

course that is situated in and-reflective of a specific

(globalized) socio-economic environment helps to

make intelligible how a historically specific form of

CSR emerges and why CSR (in an explicit sense) as

predominantly Anglo-Saxon concept is increasingly

applied and propagated in Europe. As an ambivalent

technology, CSR can both contribute to embedding

or disembedding economic activities, depending on

how it is constructed and enacted.

Notes

1 Especially, the initiatives within the European Par-

liament and publications of the European Commission

(Europaische Kommission, 2002, 2001) lift CSR out of

the mere academic debate to a more public level and to

the level of political decision-making.2 This is not the place to analyze the characteristics

of economic globalization in depth. Other authors have

done this extensively and in detail (Beck 1997, 1998;

Castells, 1996, 1997, 1998; Dicken, 1998; Hirst and

Thompson, 1996; Korten, 1995). It is enough here to

point out the process of deregulation, liberalization and

privatization, as well as the increasingly complex inter-

national networks of production, procurement and dis-

tribution.3 Our analysis is based on interviews that were con-

ducted in the years 2003 and 2004 with representatives

from business-organizations, labour-organizations and

NGOs. Additionally, documents and publications of

these groups where analyzed.4 All Austrian companies are members of the Aus-

trian Federal Economic Chamber, industrial companies

are additionally (voluntarily) organized within the Fed-

eration of Austrian Industry. Every employee is member

of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour, one third

of them are members of the Trade Union.5 The president of the Federation of Austrian Indus-

try, Mitterbauer put it: ‘‘We want to show the popula-

tion what Austrian companies achieve for the society’’.

(Mitterbauer, 2003, p. 14, our transl.)6 This understanding includes among others, qualifi-

cation measures for one’s own employees, ecological

market niche policy, etc.7 The CSR Mission Statement of CSR-Austria names

the following competitive advantages: Creation of trust;

promoting consumer loyalty; advantages in the competi-

tion for the best workers; risk-management; good image

and improved market position. (CSR-Austria, 2003, p. 5)8 The following agreements are mentioned as a basis

for industry and company codes: the Core Conventions

of the ILO, the UN-Declaration of Human Rights, the

UN-Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational

Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Re-

gard to Human Rights (2003), the International Cove-

nant on economic, social and cultural rights, UNO

1966, the OECD-Guidelines for TNCs, 2000, the UN-

Declaration, Rio 1992 (see AGEZ, 2003, p. 3; NGO-

Arbeitskreis ‘‘CSR’’ 2003).9 In the opinion of the chairman of the largest

branch union, Sallmutter: ‘‘In questions of ethics and

social responsibility we are dealing with concrete, leg-

ally verifiable, binding norms. Voluntary measures can-

not replace regulations for the protection of workers,

only supplement them at best... The discussion about

CSR should be used for a true further development of

existing norms in labour rights’’. (Sallmutter, 2003, p.

16, our transl.)10 ‘‘CSR must make the working conditions in the

concerned country and questions of environmental pro-

tection an important topic... They must answer for the

situation in the companies who supply them or produce

for them... CSR must therefore cover the entire pro-

duction chain’’. (AGEZ, 2003, p. 4, our transl.)


Demands with respect to taxation of companies also go

in this direction: Companies should pay taxes where

they make their turnover or a uniform corporate tax is

called for (see Schachner, 2003, p. 19).11 The working paper of the NGOs (NGO-

Arbeitskreis ‘‘CSR’’ 2003b, p. 1) names the following

demands on CSR.

– continual monitoring and reviewing of the adher-

ence to company goals in the areas of environmen-

tal protection, health and safety through a

controlling agency settled in the company.– complaints can be made to the controlling agency

without threat of sanctions– independent reviews at regular intervals incorporat-

ing stakeholders, those directly affected, and gov-

ernment offices– uniform guidelines for publicizing to enable better

comparability– information for the public about the effects of the

company’s activities concerning environment,

health and safety– publication of the results from independent controls

12 These positions can also be found in the position-

ing paper of the International Organization of Employ-

ers (IOE, 2005).13 For example, see the ‘‘Roadmap’’ of CSR-Europe

in which the term ‘‘competitive’’ is more often used

than ‘‘responsible’’ (CSR-Europe, 2004).14 See for example the position papers of the German

business organizations BDI and BDA concerning social

standards, human rights and the Greenbook of the

European Commission on CSR. Interestingly, these

positioning papers can be downloaded from the website

(http://www.csrgermany.de) (BDI, 2003; BDI/BDA,

2001; BDI/BDA, 2004)15 See BDI Annual Report 2004/2005, BDI 2005,

CSR-Europe 2004 in which they oppose CSR norms

and standards and inform about the constitution of a spe-

cific work-group to influence political decision-makers.

References

Andriof, J. and M. McIntosh, (eds.): 2001, Perspectives on

Corporate Citizenship (Sheffield, Greenleaf).

AGEZ (Arbeitsgemeinschaft ‘‘Entwicklungszusammen-

arbeit’’): 2003, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Positionspapier der AGEZ (Wien, September 2003).

Altvater, E. and B. Mahnkopf: 1997, Grenzen der Glob-

alisierung. Okonomie, Okologie und Politik in der Welt-

gesellschaft (Westfalisches Dampfboot, Munster).

Autischer, W.: 2003, ‘CSR-Austria – Unternehmen

ubernehmen gesellschaftliche Verantwortung’, Glo-

calist Review, pp. 18–19.

Balanya, B., A. Doherty, O. Hoedeman, A. Ma‘anit and

E. Wesselius: 2000, Europe Inc. – Regional & Global

Restructuring and the Rise of Corporate Power (Pluto Press,

London).

Bauman, Z.: 2001, Liquid Modernity (Polity Press, Cam-

bridge).

BDI: 2003, Kernarbeitsnormen und Sozialstandards – Stel-

lungnahme fur den Ausschuss fur wirtschaftliche Zusam-

menarbeit and Entwicklung (Bonn).

BDI: 2005, Jahresbericht 2004/2005 (Annual Report)

(Bonn).

BDI: 2005, ‘Umweltpolitik’, BDI Info-Service Jg. 15/17,

22. August 2005, p. 2.

BDI/BDA: 2001, Stellungnahme der Bundesvereinigung der

Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbande (BDA) und dem Bundes-

verband derDeutschen Industrie (BDI) zum Grunbuch

‘‘Europaische Rahmenbedingungen fur die Soziale Verant-

wortung der Unternehmen’’ der Europaischen Kommission

(Berlin).

BDI/BDA: 2004, Positionspapier Unternehmerische Verant-

wortung und Menschenrechte (Berlin).

Beck, U.: 1997, Was ist Globalisierung? (Frankfurt a. M.,

Suhrkamp).

Beck, U. (Hg.): 1998, Politik der Globalisierung,

(Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp).

Boatright, J.: 2003, Ethics and the Conduct of Business 4

(Prentice Hall, New Jersey).

Bowen, H. R.: 1953, Social Responsibilities of the Busi-

nessman (Harper & Row, New York).

Brockling, U., S. Krasmann and T. Lemke (eds.): 2000,

Gouvernementalitat. Studien zur Okonomisierung des

Sozialen (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).

Brunsson, N.: 1989, The Organization of Hypcrisy Talk,

Decisions and Actions (John Wiley, Chichester).

Bundesarbeitskammer (Arbeiterkammer): 2001, Position-

spapier zum ‘‘Grunbuch: Soziale Verantwortung der Un-

temehmen’’ der EU-Kommission (Wien, Oktober 2001).

Bundesarbeitskammer (Arbeiterkammer): 2002, Stel-

lungnahme der Bundesarbeitskammer zur Mitteilung der

Kommission betreffend die soziale Verantwortung der

Unternehmen-ein Unternehmensbeitrag zur nachhaltigen

Entwicklung (Wien).

Carroll, A.: 1999, �Corporate Social Responsibility –

Evolution of a Definitional Construct�, Business &

Society 38(3), 268–295.

Castells, M.: 1996, The Rise of the Network Society

(Blackwell, Mass).

Castells, M.: 1997, The Power of Identity (Blackwell, Mass).

Castells, M.: 1998, End of Millenium (Blackwell, Mass).


Chomsky, N.: 1998, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and

Global Order (Seven Stories Press, New York).

Crane, A. and D. Matten: 2004, Business Ethics: A Euro-

pean Perspective (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

CSR-Austria: 2003, Leitbild – Erfolgreich wirtschaften.

Verantwortungsvoll handeln (Wien).

CSR-Europe: 2004, A European Roadmap for Businesses

Towards a Sustainable and competitive Enterprise (Brussels).

D‘Aveni, R.: 1994, Hypercompetition: Managing the

Dynamics of Strategic Management (Free Press, New

York).

Deal, T.: 2004, ‘‘Business and Human Rights: The

Proposed Norms on The Responsibilities of Business

Regarding Human Rights.’’, statement to the Fund for

Peace, Human Rights and business Roundtable,

Washington DC, 6. February 2004, quoted in: Cor-

porate Europe: 2004, Shell Leads International Busi-

ness Campaign Against UN Human Rights Norms,

http://www.corporateeurope.org/norms (10.4.2005).

Derrida, J.: 1992, �Force of Law: The ‘‘Mystical Foun-

dation of Authority�, in D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld and

D. G. Carlson (eds.), Deconstruction and the Possibility of

Justice (New York/London, Routledge), pp. 3–67.

Derrida, J.: 2000, As if I were Dead. Als ob ich tot ware

(Passagen Wien).

Deuerlein, I., S. Riedel and F. Pamper: 2003, Die ge-

sellschaftliche Verantwortung osterreichischer Unternehmen,

Studie im Auftrag der Initiative CSR-Austria (Wien).

Dicken, P.: 1998, Global Shift Transforming the World

Economy 3 (PCP, London).

Die Gruppe von Lissabon: 1997, Grenzen des Wettbewerbs

– die Globalisierung der Wirtschaft and die Zukunft der

Menschheit (Munchen, Luchterhand).

Europaische Kommission: 2002, Mitteilung der Kommission

betreffend die soziale Verantwortung der Unternehmen: ein

Unternehmensbeitrag zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung

(KOM(2002) 347).

Europaische Kommission: 2001, Europaische Rahmenbe-

dingungen fur die soziale Verantwortung der Unternehmen –

Grunbuch. (Amt fur amtliche Veroffentlichungen der

EG).

Forrester, V.: 1996, L’horreur economique (Librairie Art-

heme Fayard, Paris).

Habisch, A., et al.: 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility

Across Europe (Springer, Berlin).

Habisch, A. and J. Jonker: 2005, �Introduction�, in

A. Habisch (eds.), et al.Corporate Social Responsibility

Across Europe (Springer, Berlin), pp. 1–13.

Hayek von, A. F.: 1981, Recht, Gesetzgebung and Freiheit, Bd.

2, Die Illusion der sozialen Gerechtigkeit (Landsberg a. L.).

Jones, C., M. Parker and R. ten Bos: 2005, For Business

Ethics (Routledge, London).

Hirst, P. and G. Thompson: 1996, Globalization in

Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities

for Governance (Polity Press, Cambridge).

ICC (International Chamber of Commerce/World

Business Organization): 2000, Policy Statement:

Responsible Business Conduct – an ICC approach,

Group on Business and Society, 6 May 2000, http://

www.iccwbo.org/home/statements_rules/statements/

2000/responsible_ business... (1.7.2005).

IOE (International Organisation of Employers): The

Role of Business Within Society – Position Paper as

adopted by the General Council in May 2005.

Korten, D.: 1995, When Corporations Rule the World

(Kumarian Press, West Hartford).

Leitl., C.: 2003, ‘CSR in Osterreich’, Glocalist Review,

pp. 12–13.

Mason, E.: 1974, The Corporation in Modern Society

(Atheneum, New York).

Matten, D. and J. Moon: 2005, �A Conceptual Frame-

work for Understanding CSR�, in A. Habisch (eds.),

et al.Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe

(Springer, Berlin), pp. 335–357.

Mitterbauer, P.: 2003, ‘Wirtschaftlicher Erfolg mit ge-

sellschaftlicher Verantwortung’, Glocalist Review, pp.

14–15.

NGO-Arbeitskreis ‘‘CSR’’: 2003, Elemente and Inhalte

eines Leitfadens fur CSR. Diskussionpapier. (Wien).

No author: 2003, ‘CSR 4You’, corporAID Magazin,

Dezember 2003, pp. 46–50.

Perrow, Ch.: 1991, �A Society of Organizations�, Theory

and Society 20, 725–762.

Polanyi, K.: 1944/1977, The Great Transformation Politische

and Okonomische Ursprunge von Gesellschaften und Wir-

tschaftssystemen (Europaverlag, Wien).

Rat der Europaischen Union: 2003, Entschließung des

Rates zur sozialen Verantwortung der Unternehmen

(Brussel, 10.1.2003).

Sallmutter, H.: 2003, ‘CSR aus gewerkschaftlicher Sicht’,

Glocalist Review, pp. 16–17.

Schachner, E.: 2003, ‘CSR and Entwicklungspolitik’,

Glocalist Review, pp. 18–19.

Tumpel, H.: 2003, ‘Soziale Verantwortung von Unter-

nehmen - Rahmenbddingungen fur ein glaubwurdiges

Engagement’, Glocalist Review, pp. 20–21.

USCIB (US Council for International Business) (2003): UN

Human rights Body approves Guidelines for Multi-

national Companies; August 18. 2003, http://www.

uscib.org/index.asp?documentlD=2728 (12.12.2004)).

Whitley, R.: 1992, European Business Systems (Sage,

London).

Willmott, H.: 1998, �Towards a New Ethics’? The

Contributions of Poststructuralism and Posthuman-


ism�, in M. Parker (eds.), Ethics & Organizations (Sage,

London), pp. 76–121.

Weiskopf, R.: 2004, �Management, Organisation and

die Gespenster der Gerechtigkeit�, in G. Schreyogg

and J. Sydow (eds.), Management und Gerechtigkeit.

Managementforschung 14 (Wiesbaden, Gabler), pp.

211–251.

Bernhard Mark-Ungericht

Department International Management,

University of Graz,

Universitaetsstr.15, A-8010, Graz,

Austria

E-mail: [email protected]

Richard Weiskopf

Department of Organization and Learning,

University of Innsbruck,

Universitatsstrasse 15, A-6020, Innsbruck,

Austria

E-mail: [email protected]


Filling the Empty Shell

Documents

Transcript of Filling the Empty Shell