Understanding Social Responsibility

As mentioned earlier the Information Society can be a dangerous world. Johnson (1997) explains that the potential benefit of the Information Society is being devalued by antisocial behavior, including unauthorized access, theft of electronic property, launching of viruses, racism, and harassment. These have raised new ethical, cultural, economic, and legal questions that have led many to consider the feasibility and desirability of regulation in this area. Similarly, it is questionable whether technological countermeasures will be very effective either. The absence of effective formal legal or technological controls presents grave dangers to this virtual society.

The international aspect of the Information Society, the transient nature of the content, and the rapid evolution of the techniques and strategies raise specific difficulties for the application of penal and commercial law. It is extremely difficult to determine which laws apply, who is responsible, and what proof is required in the event of a transgression. It is probably unattainable to create international law that can provide legal guarantees for this global community. This would require agreement on universal rights and wrongs that may well be possible for obvious cases, such as the dissemination of child pornography, but is very difficult for debatable issues, such as individual privacy and intellectual property. For this reason society must turn to social responsibility to provide the necessary checks and balances in order for the enormous benefits of the Information Society to be realized.

But what is social responsibility? The term has been used differently in many contexts such as business, health care, libraries, and marketing. It has been used in terms of both organizational responsibility, usually termed corporate social responsibility, and individual responsibility. Corporate social responsibility is probably the most studied area. Potentially much can be applied from this area to the Information Society and as such is worthy of some further consideration.

Corporate Social Responsibility

There are many definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). For example, Kilcullen and Kooistra (1999) suggest CSR is the degree of moral obligation that may be ascribed to corporations beyond complying with the laws of the state. Baker (2002) defines such moral obligation in a practical sense in that CSR is how companies manage the business processes to produce an overall positive impact on society. This agrees with DeHann's (2000) view that social responsibility is about achieving commercial success in ways that honor ethical values and respect people, communities, and the natural environment. The general concept of positive societal impact is elaborated upon in the definition by Holme and Watts (reported by Baker, 2002). This points to the improvement of the quality of life of the workforce and their families, as well as of the local community. The implication here is that there must be a positive relationship between an organization and its stakeholders. This relationship is explicitly stated in the CCBC (2002) definition, which is that CSR is "the overall relationship of the corporation with all of its stakeholders. These include customers, employees, communities, owners/investors, government, suppliers, and competitors. Elements of social responsibility include investment in community outreach, employee relations, creation and maintenance of employment, environmental stewardship, and financial performance."

CSR does not appear to be a universal concept. For example, Baker (2002) explains that, in Ghana, CSR is concerned with sustaining livelihoods and that it must respect cultural differences, while in the Philippines the focus seems philanthropic and is about business giving back to society. He suggests this is different from the European approach, which focuses on operating the business in a socially responsible way, complemented by investment in communities, but only for solid business case reasons. This view of Europe appears at odds with the definition used by Hines et al. (2000) in their research on European attitudes towards CSR. They suggest social responsibility activities go beyond profit making and focus on environmental protection, employee welfare, ethical trading, and involvement in the local community within which an organization operates.

CSR Policy

CSR must have practical worth. The UK Government in its "Business and Society: Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2002" suggests that the concepts and principles discussed above need to be translated into organizational policy and operational practice. It explains that responsible organizations do three things:

• Recognize that their activities have a wider impact on the society in which they operate.

• Take account of the economic, social, environmental, and human rights impact of their activities across the world.

• Strive to achieve benefits by working in partnership with other groups and organizations.

The five cases that follow illustrate typical practice and policy across a broad range of organizations. The italicized text in each case contains extracts from the organization's policy documents.

Policy Case 1. Lever Brothers Limited (see Zairi, 2000)

Lever Brothers is a long-established chemical manufacturer in the north of England. The emphasis of their social responsibility approach is on safety, the environment, and employee welfare. It appears quite local in its focus and does not move far beyond the company's core business. While the policy states the principles are for employees to follow, the five statements seem more appropriate to organizational action than individual action.

• Lever lays down the following principles for employees to follow in order to effectively focus on societal value-added:

  1. We recognize that our employment policy, not least the commitment to training and personal development and our emphasis on safety, health, and environment, has a positive impact on the world outside the working environment.

  2. We improve the well-being of society at large both by the generation of employment in companies which service and supply us, and in our marketing activities.

  3. We use a world-class expertise base in human safety to ensure the consumer safety of our products.

  4. We take great care to minimize the environmental impact on all our operations from raw material procurement, product design, manufacture, and distribution to use and disposal.

  5. Lever has a long and proud tradition of involvement with the community. This originated when William Hesketh Lever first established Port Sunlight village to improve the living conditions and well-being of his employees.

Policy Case 2. British Columbia Ministry of Education (2001)

This is a pragmatic framework for an educational setting. It does not provide a comprehensive definition of social responsibility, but it does clearly set out expected norms of behavior for individuals. It is easily understood but challenging to realize. It might also be considered as a code of conduct.

• The framework for the BC performance standards for social responsibility provides educators, students, and families with a common set of expectations for student development in four categories. Most of these have more than one component.

• Contributing to the Classroom and School Community

  • sharing responsibility for their social and physical environment

  • participating and contributing to the class and to small groups

• Solving Problems in Peaceful Ways

  • managing conflict appropriately, including presenting views and arguments respectfully, and considering others' views

  • using effective problem-solving steps and strategies

• Valuing Diversity and Defending Human Rights

  • treating others fairly and respectfully; showing a sense of ethics

  • recognizing and defending human rights

• Exercising Democratic Rights and Responsibilities

  • knowing and acting on rights and responsibilities (local, national, global)

  • articulating and working toward a preferred future for the community, nation, and planet—a sense of idealism

Policy Case 3. Hudson's Bay Company (2002)

Hudson's Bay Company is Canada's oldest corporation and largest department store retailer. This is their statement of philosophy. It recognizes the potential tension between profit and societal needs. The emphasis is on establishing an acceptable organizational culture that promotes broad social responsibility.

• Hudson's Bay Company believes that a company is obligated to be accountable to all of its stakeholders in all it operations and activities. Socially responsible companies consider the full scope of their impact on communities and the environment when making decisions, balancing the needs of stakeholders with their need to make a profit.

• Companies need to:

  • demonstrate commitment to their espoused values by actively contributing to social and environmental goals, as well as economic ones;

  • insulate society from negative impacts of the companies' operations, products, and services; and

  • share the benefits of company activities with key stakeholders.

Policy Case 4. Assistants.Com (2002)

Assistants.Com is an online software house that subscribes to open source principles. Again this is a statement of philosophy. There is an attempt to link social responsibility positively to self as well as others. This is different from the other cases, which all focus only on the relationship with others.

• Our principles

• Social Responsibility—We believe that there is no purpose in getting wealthy for the sake of wealth. As we have been lucky enough to be given quality education in high-demand skills, we have no real problem maintaining our financial commitments. Rather, we hope to create sites which provide value to others and we hope to use the proceeds in a rewarding manner. We are not a non-profit, but we recognize the importance of social responsibility, not to the world, but to our own happiness.

Policy Case 5. AASL Information Literacy Standards (1996)

This policy again focuses on individual behavior, but this time in a library setting. It provides clear policy regarding the range of modern information resources. This policy covers the individual in the role of user of technology, creator of information, and member of the library community.

• Category III: Social Responsibility

• The student who contributes positively to the learning community and to society is information literate and:

• Standard 7: Recognizes the importance of information to a democratic society, as described by the following indicators:

  1. seeks information from diverse sources, contexts, disciplines, and cultures;

  2. respects the principle of equitable access to information.

• Standard 8: Practices ethical behavior in regard to information and information technology, as described by the following indicators:

  1. respects the principles of intellectual freedom;

  2. respects intellectual property rights;

  3. uses information technology responsibly.

• Standard 9: Participates effectively in groups to pursue and generate information, as described by the following indicators:

  1. shares knowledge and information with others;

  2. respects others' ideas and backgrounds and acknowledges their contributions;

  3. collaborates with others, both in person and through technologies, to identify information problems and to seek their solutions;

  4. collaborates with others, both in person and through technologies, to design, develop, and evaluate information products and their solutions.

The five cases illustrate a variety of approaches to turning social responsibility concepts and principles into practical policy. When combined they emphasize the importance of creating employment and supporting personal development, public welfare, environmental care, shared responsibility, reasoned problem resolution, respect for others, distributed benefits, and equality of opportunity and access. Such themes are particularly important, given that most modern organizations operate in the context of the Information Society.

Psychologists working online serve as a good illustration of how such themes are relevant for those working within a modern organization in the Information Society. King and Poulous (1999) explain, "Psychologists 'apply and make public their knowledge of psychology in order to contribute to human welfare' (APA, 1992). Online psychologists who maintain a website advertising their services often include a wealth of information about psychological disorders and their treatment. This psycho-educational service is available to the public 24 [hours] a day, can be accessed to the advantage of anyone, not necessarily a client, and is generally provided free of charge. In situations where a recipient of services is in a geographically remote location, online therapy may be the only psychological therapy available to them." In this situation the psychologist's traditional approach has been transcended with the advent of the Information Society. In this new situation, public welfare, distributed benefit, and equality of access are all promoted through exploiting the temporal and geographic independence of the online world.

This type of transformation is common across many types of work. The social responsibility principles discussed above and the practical adaptations in the five case illustrations can be used to derive a set of strategic pointers for applying social responsibility within the Information Society as follows:

• Develop a socially responsible culture within the organization which nurtures moral individual action.

• Consider and support the well-being of all stakeholders.

• Account for global common values and local cultural differences.

• Recognize social responsibility is beyond legal compliance and effective fiscal management.

• Ensure all business processes are considered from a social responsibility perspective.

• Be proactive rather than reactive.

From this discussion there appears to be three concepts to draw from CSR and its practical adaptation: adoption of a stakeholder approach, focus on welfare and quality of life, and account for cultural diversity. These can be related to specific issues in the Information Society. Dhillon (2002) identifies five broad issues of social responsibility that permeate the Information Society. These are privacy and confidentiality, accessibility, property rights, freedom of speech, and quality and reliability of systems. The three concepts underpin each of these five broad issues. For example, freedom of speech is directly constrained by Internet censorship. This could affect many stakeholders such as the community, employees, and competitors. Damage to freedom of speech will degrade quality of life. Internet censorship is accepted and even promoted in some countries, while in others it is seen as grossly unacceptable.