The ramifications of globalisation were to introduce a concept which will make corporations become our global friends. The idea of globalisation was similar to the apocalypse of Mars which happened billions of years ago. Globalisation meant the transition of becoming global citizens and also promoting global integration which creates an analogy of Coca-Cola operating in your back garden with all their machinery and not caring about your health or your wellbeing. Globalisation caused an interface between people and corporations and the rapport between people and corporations was at a breaking point because the trust was not profound. 

There is no difference between globalisation and capitalism – it is just one’s idea to exploit global citizens and the other idea makes global citizens think that they are part of the system which will make them rich one day. To make the notions of capitalism and globalisation prevail; the corporate juggernauts told the biggest joke and this was called ‘corporate social responsibility – CSR’. 

Doane (2005) outlines the myth of CSR where Doane (2005) notes that the market can deliver short-term financial gains which will create long-term social benefits in return. This assertion seems to be the opposite because CSR continues to provide long-term financial gains and short-term social benefits. However, CSR activities are diminished as soon as corporations have reached their financial goals. Empirical evidence shows that corporations have provided CSR to increase financial performance (Simionescu and Dumitrescu, 2018; Winchester et al., 2008; Pan et al, 2014). The wider research of CSR points out the ability of the brands in shaping their brand identity and increasing the company financial performance (CPF) rather than focusing on providing sustainable education programmes and healthcare to enrich local communities. 

Although Freeman et al (2004) emphasise stakeholder management; many corporations have rejected this notion that stakeholders are an integral part if CSR is to work. Freeman et al (2004) stand behind the stakeholder theory and point out that corporations should create a value for the stakeholders when implementing their CSR practices. Janson (2005) also reiterates that there must be strong interconnections between stakeholders and the company itself for CSR to be effective. 

CSR becomes a big joke when societal factors are eradicated from its core principles that it was founded on. The idealistic approach is to mitigate CSR along with stakeholder management so that it can strengthen the image of CSR and also for CSR not to be laughed at on a wider scale. The idea of implementing a stable CSR has always remained a joke that can be told. Divenney (2009) denotes that CSR is viewed as an instrument of public policy which exists to serve the public; CSR does not serve the public if the case of Shell and Niger Delta is considered as the constant pollution in the region has an impact on livestocks and farming due to the lack of due diligence of the operations of Shell and BP. The CSR policy has been implemented within corporations to stimulate profits and increase market leaderships so that certain corporations can extend its oligopoly market structures - for example, Coca-Cola getting away from sugar levies in Mexico and selling its products frequently through penetration pricing strategies to discourage Mexicans from drinking water and consuming sugar drinks that have triggered high diabete rates in Mexico. 

The relationship between profits and CSR is evident with cases such as L’Oreal and BHP-Billiton. L’Oreal’s acquisition of The Body Shop was solely based on profits and propelled its market leadership because The Body Shop’s image of being sustainable through its profound CSR policy. The acquisition by L’Oreal Groupe made it easy for consumers to believe that L’Oreal Groupe was being sustainable through the limited testing on animals but the Body Shop image gave L’Oreal Groupe the mandate to notify pressure groups and NGOs that CSR policy was their first priority but hindsight, it was to make profits and become the largest cosmetics brand (in terms of sales-$31.95 billion) in the world (L’Oreal, 2021). 

The illusion turns into a joke because the real magic is making global citizens believe that CSR helps fund education and healthcare but in truth, it outlines the triple bottom line which are Profits, Propaganda and Proliferation of lies. Prahalad and Brugmann (2007) pointed out that CSR needs government interventions and policies for it to be as transparent as corporations claim. This then resides in the fact that it is only social experimentation for corporations to see how they can generate profits. 

Milton Friedman highlights this joke even further where he notes that the aim of corporations is to generate economic returns and the design of corporations to use their resources to create products and services so that they can sustain their competitive advantage. Friedman (1970) points out that the free market ideology should not be coupled with fraud and deception and this is the idea that CSR is based on. Friedman’s assertion is profound if the ‘big joke’ connotation is highlighted because corporations are trying to be nice citizens by being socially responsible  but the main aim is to generate capital and maximise shareholders’ value and returns. 

Friedman expresses his views on CSR and some may argue that his views are minor if the whole picture of CSR is in its frame. The measurement of performance is another joke as empirical evidence (Orlitzy et al, 2003; Margolis et al, 2007; Simionescu and Dumitrescu, 2018) proves very little which leaves people thinking about the competencies of CSR. CSR should be measured accordingly to show that corporations are being socially responsible or not. The ethical and other indexes are pointless and they do not measure the bad and good of CSR which creates a joke in the global arena. The sustainability and annual reports show how CSR activities are being carried out by showing images of educational and healthcare programmes in developing and underdeveloped countries; however,  these images could be an illusion to make people believe that these corporations are actually carrying out social projects but in reality, they are not doing so. 

CSR does not need to be a joke because some of these social projects have helped some communities in developed and underdeveloped countries. However, the measurement of CSR success must be established for the greater of good , otherwise this policy will remain as a joke. Friedman’s statement could be disregarded if CSR was being measured and being taken seriously by corporations. As long as CSR stays the same without any significant changes, it will always be labelled as a joke. 

References

1. Doane, D. (2005). The Myth of CSR. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3(3), 23–29

2. Simionescu, L.D and Dumitrescu, D (2018). Empirical Study towards Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Company Financial Performance. Evidence for Companies Listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange. Sustainability, 10, 3141-3164

3. Winchester, M.; Romaniuk, J.; Bogomolova, S. (2008) Positive and negative brand beliefs and brand defection/uptake. Eur. J. Mark, 42, 553–570

4. Pan, X.P.; Sha, J.H.; Zhang, H.L.; Ke, W.L. (2014). Relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in the mineral industry: Evidence from Chinese mineral firms. Sustainability, 6, 4077–4101

5. Freeman, R.E.; Wicks, A.C.; Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organisation Science, 15, 364–369

6. Brugmann, J., & Prahalad, C. K. (2007). Cocreating business’s new social impact. Harvard Business Review, pp.1–13

7. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York TimesMagazine, pp. 1–6

8. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. R. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organisation Studies, 24 (3), pp. 403–41

9. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on corporate social and financial performance. Boston: Harvard Business School

10. L’Oreal (2021) L’Oreal Annual Report. [Online] https://www.loreal-finance.com/en/annual-report-2021/cosmetics-market/ [accessed 19/05/2022]