Relation between CSR and competitiveness, CSR and embeddedness

The previous chapter illustrated how diverse CSR activities the selected family firms carry out. All but three companies stated that they could clearly image their CSR activities where the firm operates, and this is without exception the family’s home since they operate in Győr or in a settlement near Győr (e.g. Győrújbarát), because the founding family member lived here when the firm was set up and since then the family has been living here. It is important for them to support those local, regional communities where they operate. On the one hand, it is important to produce quality products and provide high quality services, but on the other hand, also to help local communities in all forms and to support workers. Thus, they carry out CSR activity in the area because they are committed to the area and they think that their activities have already made them known and they have been embedded in the area. Interestingly, none of the firms said that their CSR activities would strengthen their regional embeddedness.

Two firms said that they could not interpret local, regional embeddedness, commitment, because their activity is not local but nationwide, thus even if they carry out CSR activity, its scene can be anywhere in the country. A firm did not provide information in this regard.

Unfortunately, only five companies provided usable information regarding the relation between competitiveness and CSR. Three firms out of these said that there was a clear link between their competitiveness and their CSR activities. In case of one firm CSR activity contributes to generating conscious and sustainable demand, which increases profitability, thus may increase competitiveness.

Another firm mentioned that having information about CSR activity on their website might have a positive impact on their potential partners, and this may contribute to a successful bargain later or other actors may propagate the good reputation of the firm, however, it is important to add that they do not do so because of this, as it is only an added value of the CSR activity of the previous years. The CEOs of two companies reported that for them CSR is not an activity from which they expect, not even indirectly, higher profitability or higher competitiveness, they only do so because it is good to help, thus they do not even think of CSR as advertising.

4. Conclusion

The aim of the study was on the one hand to examine the concept of corporate social responsibility, competitiveness and embeddedness in theory, and on the other hand, to explore practical aspects of the topic with the help of interviews made with family firms operating in Győr and near Győr. The concept of CSR and competitiveness as well as that of CSR and embeddedness have not been studied in the literature for a long time, therefore my aim was to give a review of the possibilities of connecting these terms. CSR and competitiveness can be related in two ways: the company either directly counts on the impact of CSR activity on the increase in competitiveness or it carries out CSR activity and its indirect effect on competitiveness may show up so in this case the intention to help comes first in terms of motivation. There is a link also between embeddedness and CSR, since a company will feel that it would like to help its environment if it is committed to the area, the place and is motivated by the ability to help its environment in other ways than its services and products.

The 20 interviewed family firms (the research was not representative) all carry out CSR activity, and in the study I presented how diverse and creative activities are carried out to help the people and the organisations in Győr and near Győr, what’s more, for half of the companies it is also important to support the staff.

Based on the responses of the 20 interviewed companies, I think that most of them are characterised by value-based CSR activity as there are several similar elements in their activities and assistance is in the centre of their motivation, however, despite the similarities, there are unique, firm-specific characters as well.

All but three companies carry out CSR activity in the area because they operate here, they are committed to help the society of the area, however, in case of two companies we can talk about nationwide activity, so local CSR activity is not a priority for them. Unfortunately, regarding competitiveness I could only evaluate the responses of five companies. The responses were diverse, there were compa-nies that perceived an impact on CSR, but it is not in the centre of motivation, whereas other companies definitely barred that there might be a link between CSR and competitiveness, and the motivation here was also assistance.

The findings presented in this study are partial results, the research is still ongoing at the time of writing this study. The plans include finding additional firms for interviews as well as examining the topic more widely, e.g. by conducting focus group interviews. There are questions in the paper which are still open, further research can provide enough information to be able to answer them and also the relation between CSR and competitiveness as well as CSR and embeddedness can be more conceptualised based on further examination.

Acknowledgements

The paper was supported by the “Center for cooperation between higher education and the industries at the Széchenyi István University (FIEK)” under grant number GINOP-2.3.4-15-2016-00003.

References

ANDRÁS I., RAJCSÁNYI-MOLNÁR M. 2014. Profit és filantrópia. A CSR eszmetörténeti kérdései. In: Civil Szemle. Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 5–23.

ANGYAL, Á. 2009. Vállalatok társadalmi felelőssége, felelős társaságirányítás. Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó.

ASTRACHAN, J. H., KLEIN, S. B., SMYRNIOS, K. 2005. The F-PEC scale of family inuence:

construction, validation, and further implication for theory. In: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. No. 3, pp. 321–339.

BALOGH E., BOGNÁR K., GYŐRI ZS., MUHI E., TARDOS K. 2014. Jót s jól – Vállalati felelősségvállalásról kis- és középvállalkozásoknak. Budapest: Országos Foglalkoztatási Közhasznú Nonprofit Kft.

BOWEN, H. R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. No. 3. New York: Harper &

Brothers.

CARROLL, A. B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. In: Business Horizons. Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 39 – 48.

CSONKA, A., SZABÓ-SZENTGRÓTI, E., KŐMŰVES. Zs., SZABÓ-SZENTGRÓTI, G., BORBÉLY, Cs. 2013. Nyereséges vállalati működés vs társadalmi felelősségvállalás. In: Acta Scientiarum Socialium. No. 39, pp. 181–188.

CZAKÓ, E., CHIKÁN, A. 2007. Gazdasági versenyképességünk vállalati nézőpontból – 2004–

2006. In: Vezetéstudomány. Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 2–8.

FRIEDMAN, M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

FRIEDMAN, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In: New York Times Magazine. September 13, No. 32–33, pp. 122–126.

GOODPASTER, K. E., MATTHEWS, G. B. 1982. Can a corporation have a conscience? In:

Harward Business Review. January–February, pp. 132–141.

GRAAFLAND, J. J., MAZEREEUW-VAN DER DUIJN SCHOUTEN, C. 2012. Motives for Corporate Social Responsibility. In: De Economist, No. 160, pp. 377–396.

JÓZSA, V. 2019. A vállalati beágyzódás útjai Magyarországon. Budapest: Dialóg-Campus Kiadó.

KOTLER, P., LEE, N. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Cause. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

LENGYEL, I. 2003. Verseny és területi fejlődés. Szeged: JATE Press.

MATOLAY, R., PETHEŐ, A., PATAKI, Gy. 2007. Vállalatok társadalmi felelőssége és a kis- és középvállalatok. Kutatás és tanulmány a Nemzeti ILO tanács részére. ILO.

MCWILLIAMS, A., SIEGEL, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. In: Academy of Management Review. Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 117–27.

PORTER, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage – Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance.

New York: Free Press.

REISINGER, A. 2018. Győri autóipari beszállító vállalkozások CSR tevékenysége öt vállalkozás példáján. In: Tér-Gazdaság-Ember. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 283–310.

SZABÓ-BENEDEK, A. 2014. A CSR-gyakorlat vizsgálata a vállalatvezetői értékek és attitűdök tükrében. PhD-értekezés. Gödöllő: Szent István Egyetem.

TÖRÖK, A. 2002. Az etikus vállalati magatartás és annak „filantróp csapdája”. In: Közgazdasági Szemle. Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 441–454.

VARGA, J. 2017. A szervezetek versenyképességének alapjai: a vállalati versenyképesség erősítésének lehetőségei. In: CSISZÁRIK-KOCSIR Á. (szerk.) Vállalkozásfejlesztés a XXI.

században. Budapest: Óbudai Egyetem. pp. 725–743.

WHETTEN, D. A., RANDS, G., GODFREY, P. 2002. What are the responsibilities of business to society? In: PETTIGREW, A. M., THOMAS, H., WHITTINGTON, R. (eds.) Handbook of Strategy and Management. London: SAGE. pp. 373–408.