在過去的幾十年里，人們對企業社會責任體制(CSR)越來越看重。近幾年，因為公司采納企業社會責任體制的原因，具有社會責任感的公司在與日俱增。歐盟委員會(European Commission)將企業社會責任定義為這樣一種概念：公司把社會、環境、倫理和人權問題與業務操作和核心策略相結合，并且與利益相關者密切合作，以充分滿足社會責任體制的要求(European Commission, 2011)。
 
顯而易見，CSR模式的轉變是從義務到策略的變化。在1990年之前，企業社會責任是由于面對“doing good to look good”的壓力而實行的。現在，強調戰略方法“doing good to do well”(Vogel, 2005 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010)。增加利益相關者對企業的倫理、社會和環境行為的意識；面對利益相關者、投資者和競爭者的壓力，具有社會責任的知識分子的增加，有助于企業采用企業社會責任體制。同時，通過對企業社會責任體系的高度重視，公司會意識到潛在的最低利益(Carroll & Shabana, 2010)。
 
Over the decades, the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has continued to develop prevalently. Socially responsible companies have increased extensively in the most recent years as companies engage in CSR. The European Commission defines CSR as a concept whereby companies integrate social, environmental, ethical and human rights concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders in order to fully meet social responsibility (European Commission, 2011).
 
The shift in CSR paradigm from obligations to strategy is evident. Before the 1990s, CSR was implemented as a result of pressure for "doing good to look good". Today, the shift emphasis on strategic approach of "doing good to do well" (Vogel, 2005 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010). The increase stakeholder awareness of corporate ethical, social and environment behaviours; pressures from the stakeholder, investors and competitors; and the increase of intellect in social responsibility contribute to the need of companies to adopt CSR. Also, companies are recognizing the potential bottom line benefits by being focused to CSR (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
 
However, many companies hesitate to engage in CSR activities. This is mainly due to the fact that managers cannot see substantial results immediately. Managers that make decision on company budget splits cannot see the CSR effects and with that reason, companies prefer to invest in strategies that can provide results in shorter period. Hence, this research topic is vital for managers to understand that although initial cost is involved, the return is immense in the long-run (Khanifar et al, 2012).
 
In pursue to ascertain whether CSR does pay off; this research covers a few key issues. The first part focuses on the rationales of companies engaging in CSR relating to the stakeholders theory. The second section entails CSR application in businesses towards success. Phillip Morris USA Inc. is used as a case study to discuss the engagement level and responsibilities fulfilment in Carroll's Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility. The third part focuses on the relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance (CFP). Theoretical and practical illustrations are shown to support to the research topic.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
This study is based on empirical academic researches such as students' journals and thesis; and non-academic researches such as organizations' reports. The findings are derived from various forms of qualitative and quantitative researches. The most common form is empirical and conceptual studies. Others include longitudinal analysis, hypothesis, case study and corporate information.
 
2.0公司為什么采用CSR— Why companies engage in CSR?
 
Numerous researches demonstrated the potential benefits that companies reap by engaging in CSR. CSR engagement is often linked to the profitability and the financial performance of a business. Motives are categorized based on approaches, topics and hypothesises on how value is formed and classified. According to this classification, CSR is feasible as it is an aid to reduce costs and risks, gain competitive advantage, develop reputation and legitimacy, and achieve win-win situation through synergistic value creation. These arguments are based on stakeholder theory, which suggests that companies take into considerations of other constituencies such as customers, employees, suppliers and communities in their decision-making and activities planning (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Bird et al.,2007 cited in Khanifar et al., 2012).
 
2.1 減少成本和風險—Costs and Risks Reduction
The rationalization of this argument is that companies engaged in CSR activities decrease redundant expenditure and risk exposure (Kamran et al., 2012, Weber, 2008 cited in Nijhof & Jeurissen, 2010). Stakeholders' demands may lead threats to the company. Company that participates actively in social and environmental activities can benefit from threats mitigation and increase in economic benefits. (Kuruez et al., 2008 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
 
For instances, companies that translate CSR through equal employment opportunity (EEO) policies and practices increase companies values in the long-run. Employees' morale is improved and employee turnover is decreased. (Smith, 2005 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Companies that are attentive to environmental issues can reduce costs of complying with environmental regulations and reduce operating costs. (Kamran et al., 2012; Weber, 2008 cited in Nijhof & Jeurissen, 2010). Companies that contribute to the community are perceived as legitimate members. Hence, lesser regulations are imposed and tax advantages are attained (Kamran et al., 2012).
 
2.2 獲取競爭優勢—Gain Competitive Advantage
Companies integrate CSR initiatives into their business strategies to gain competitive advantage. Opportunities are exploited and resources are managed strategically to meet stakeholders' demands (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
 
Again as example, companies that practise EEO policies gain competitive advantage. Those without inclusive policies are at disadvantage as may not be able to recruit and retain employees from the varied talent pool (Smith, 2005 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Weber 2008 cited in Nijhof & Jeurissen, 2010). Some companies align philanthropic activities with their business core competencies. This is to improve the effectiveness of charitable activities and to ensure exclusive value creation to the beneficiaries without disrupting the main business activities. For example, McKinsey & Co. provides free consultation services in cultural, social and educational fields to charitable organizations, universities and colleges, and community art galleries (Bruch & Walter, 2005 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Home Depot Inc. provided knowledge on home reconstructions to the victims of Hurricane Katrina (Home Depot, 2009 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Gaining competitive advantage leads to brand loyalty and increase consumer's benefaction (Pivato et al., 2008 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Investors related programs are more successful as many institutional investors venture to companies with virtuous records of employee affiliation, environmental stewardship, societal contribution, and corporate governance (Spider, 1978, Rosen et al., 1991, Graves & Waddock, 1994 & Pava & Krausz, 1996 cited in Khanifar et al., 2012).
 
2.3 提高名聲和增強合法性—Develop Reputation and Legitimacy
As companies exhibit their ability to correspond with the society and culture, they are able to develop mutual beneficial relationships with stakeholders. Companies aim to create value by leveraging reputation and legitimacy in response to stakeholders interests (Hildebrand et al., 2011; Barnett, 2007 cited in Peloza & Shang, 2011).
 
The engagement in CSR activities builds reputation that the company is honest and reliable, and hence, consumers will assume that the products produced are of better quality (Mc Williams & Siegel, 2001 cited in Melo & Galan, 2011). Consumers also willing to pay at premium prices (Du et al., 2007 cited in Peloza & Shang, 2011). These perceptions aid companies to sustain greater profit over the period (Roberts & Dowling, 2002 cited in Melo & Galan, 2011).
 
Corporate philanthropy is often related to the legitimacy of a company. Businesses with negative social performance in environmental issues and safety goods exploit charitable contributions to build legitimacy. Example, tobacco companies like Philip Morris USA Inc (Brusvang, 2012).
 
Companies also improve their reputation and legitimacy through sustainability reporting or corporate social reporting. Information of the companies economic, social and environmental performances are documented and disclosed to the public. The introduction of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 1997-1998 and the United Nations Global Compact in 1999, promote the practice of corporate social reporting (Leszczynska, 2012). CSR reporting has direct impacts to the company's image, external evaluation and market value (Massound at el., 2011 cited in Leszczynska, 2012).
 
2.4 協同創造價值，達到雙贏效果—Achieve Win-Win Results through Synergistic Value Creation
 
Synergistic value creation is achieved when opportunities are employed incorporation with stakeholders' demands (Barnett, 2007 cited in Peloza & Shang, 2011). Corporate philanthropy increases the competitiveness of the organization and also satisfy the needs of the stakeholders (Peloza & Shang, 2011).
 
For example, educational contributions offer opportunities to those in need and in return, the quality of future and available human resources to the company is enhanced. Also, charitable contributions to society lead to the establishment and preservation of better quality in life, and hence may uphold sophisticated and demanding consumers (Porter & Kramer 2002 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
The win-win viewpoint on CSR practices intend to fulfil stakeholders' demands and to allow companies to pursue its operation. For example, the life science company, Novo Group who adopted this win-win perspective. The company is allowed to pursue its business despite its active involvement in genetic modification. The company maintains bilateral and constructive relationships with the stakeholders and publishes quality environmental and social reports yearly. Contrarily, a similar business, Monsanto faced numerous problems as stakeholders' demands were ignored. The problems resulted in a major repercussion in the European consumer market as the label was perceived as deceptive with food ingredients being genetically modified (Wheeler et al., 2003 cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010). This proves that by gaining stakeholders' supports, opportunities are exploited to achieve maximum profits.
 
3.0公司如何采用CSR— How do companies apply CSR?
 
Companies apply CSR in many ways and CSR can relate to numerous different behavioural aspects within a company. A well known approach is the Carroll's Pyramid of Social Responsibility, as shown in Figure 1. According to this approach, companies are influenced by the four levels of responsibility which are the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Usually, the priorities of companies are from the bottom to the top of the pyramid, which are to fulfil the economic responsibility and shifting towards philanthropic fulfilment. The main priority of business is profit making, hence the first responsibility is economic. While pursuing economic benefits, companies are bounded to comply with legal laws. Ethical responsibility implies societal concerns beyond legal constraints such as just and fair conduct of companies' activities. The last level, philanthropic responsibility involves companies' discretionary acts of engaging activities that the society expected and desired (Carroll, 1979 cited in Nazari et al., 2012; Brusvang, 2012).
 
However, not all companies exhibit CSR equally (Birch, 2002 cited in Galbreath, 2010). Companies may be reactive but minimum efforts are made in response to stakeholders' criterion. There are also companies that do not react or reject social responsibilities. Companies that aggressively demonstrate CSR and operate beyond minimum constraints will not only create and enhance social welfare but also increase their own success (Carroll, 1979 cited in Galbreath, 2010).
 
Figure 1: Carroll's Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility
 
Source: Brusvang, K. (2012) Philip Morris USA Inc. & Corporate Social Responsibility - going up into flames? BSc. thesis, Aarhus University.
 
Take the example of Phillip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA). Exempt the contradictory issue of CSR and tobacco industry, whereby often being criticized of its hypo critic motives for window-dressing. PM USA generally needs to fulfil its economic responsibility as the business will not sustain without profit. PM USA is the primary tobacco company in the USA with market share of 53.4%. The total profit and revenue for PM USA, its parent company Alta Group Inc., and subsidiaries had increased by 21.8% and 3.4% respectively from 2009 to 2010. Data also proven that PM USA and its group of companies are in healthy financial situation (Datamonitor, 2011 cited in Brusvang, 2012, pp.20). PM USA recognizes its legal responsibility to adhere to extensive restrictions and regulations such as the Tobacco Control Act and the Master Settlement Agreement, which generally regulate the production, marketing and advertising aspects of the products. Besides, PM USA and other tobacco companies are obliged to finance state's projects such as the $1.5 billion anti-smoking campaign (State of California Department of Justice, 2012 cited in Brusvang, 2012, pp.21). The ethical responsibility of PM USA can be justified through its Code of Conduct, which entails guidelines for its employee and internal stakeholders to conform. PM USA active participations in charitable activities proved that philanthropic responsibility is fulfilled. PM USA and Altria Group Inc contributed millions to charitable organizations and $1.3 billion over the ten years to non-profit organizations. The case study of PM USA proves that CSR engagement is essential to enhance social wellbeing and to increase its success (Brusvang, 2012, pp21-23).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
4.0 CSR需要支付嗎？—Does CSR Pay?
 
Empirical research demonstrates the relationship between CSR and CFP. There are arguments that claim cost incurred by investing in CSR activities result in an economic disadvantage as compared to other competitors (Van de Ven & Jeurissen, 2005 cited in Nijhof & Jeurissen, 2010; McGuire et al., 1988 cited in Khanifar et al., 2012). The late economist, Milton Friedman claimed that businesses' only responsibility is to increase its profits (Friedman, 1970 cited in Nijhof & Jeurissen, 2010). There are also moralistic arguments that companies should sacrifice profits for societal responsibilities (Mulligan, 1990; Jeurissen, 2000 cited in Nijhof & Jeurissen, 2010). However, from the viewpoint of enlightened self-interest, companies do not need to choose either to forgo profits or practice societal responsibilities, but to achieve win-win situation by promoting both ethics and profits. The gap between CSR and CFP is linked by the enlightened self-interest arguments, which claimed that CSR leads to indirect benefits and pay off to businesses in the long-run. CSR provides intangible assets to companies such as brand loyalty, enhancement of supply chain and risk reduction. The positive memorandum of the enlightened self interest argument is that companies which 'do good will also do well' (Nijhof & Jeurissen, 2010).
 
A hypothesis was conducted on a sample of top 100 sustainable global companies in 2008. These companies were selected from 3,000 firms from developed countries and emerging markets. The results showed that companies with superior sustainability practices have superior financial performance and growth measured by return on assets, profit before taxation, and cash flows from those that do not practice. Moreover, the results also show that these sustainable companies possess higher financial performance and sustainability over the period. The return on assets (ROA), profit before tax (PBT) and cash flows from operating activities (CFO) also constantly increased over the period from 2006 to 2010. Overall, these results proved a positive relationship between CSR and CFP (Ameer & Othman, 2012)
 
A longitudinal analysis was conducted with top US corporations as sample, to measure the impact of CSR on company's performance. Using brand value as a dependent variable in function of CSR, the results showed a positive relationship on company's performance. CSR initiatives bring measurable returns to the companies although these measures are not necessarily tangible and can be alternatively perceived in corporate brand value. It is confirmed that CSR is a long-term investment as brand value is significantly more robust over time. Overall, the analysis supports empirical indications that CSR pays off (Melo & Galan, 2011).
 
A case study of Unilever demonstrated a positive impact of CSR initiatives to the company. The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan which was launched in November 2010 aimed to drive growth and profitability through sustainability practices. All the brands which are building sustainability into their propositions are performing well. For example, the concentrated liquid detergents, Lifebuoy and Comforts experienced sales growth of double digits in 2011. In productions, the eco-efficiency programmes are delivering savings and the reduction in packaging is resulting in lower cost. In 2011, Unilever's sales growth was 6.5% with higher market shares and more stabilize operating margin (Unilever, 2011)#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Another evidence that CSR boosts the bottom line is the case study of Marks & Spencer (M&S). In 2007, M&S launched Plan A with the aim to reduce retailer’s environmental impact while trading ethically and to promote healthier lifestyle to the consumers. The five years of Plan A, yielded a total net benefit of £105m with further returns in the coming years (Marks & Spencer, 2012).
 
Furthermore, a survey made by KPMG (2011) on corporate responsibility reporting reveals that nearly half of the largest companies in the world (G250 companies) are gaining financial returns from their corporate responsibility engagements. Also, the survey reveals that today corporate responsibilities have turned into to a critical business issue instead of being just a moral necessity (KPMG, 2011).
 
5.0 總結—Conclusion
 
CSR has been growing rapidly in the recent years. Although CSR is not mandatory but the magnitude of its growth has influenced many companies to engage in CSR today. The increased awareness and pressure from stakeholders has influenced companies to adopt CSR. Also, companies are starting to see the potential bottom line benefits that they could reap by being attentive to CSR. Companies' motivations to reduce cost and risks, gain competitive advantage, develop reputation and legitimacy and achieve win-win situations through synergized value creation are evident (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
 
The application of CSR and the level of engagement determine the success of the companies. The main responsibilities of companies are to fulfil their economic and legal responsibilities. However, companies that operate beyond the ethical and philanthropic levels gain better returns. Not only do these companies create and enhance social welfare but also increase their own success (Carroll, 1979 cited in Galbreath, 2010).
 
Various theoretical and practical illustrations had proven that CSR improve companies' financial performances. In the short-run, the investment in CSR activities may increase companies spending. Nevertheless, these investments are virtuous and these strategic decisions are able to yield enormous return in the long-run. The return may not be tangible but its indirect relationship supports the fact that CSR does pay-off by increasing companies' value and sustainability (Khanifar et al., 2012).
 
The limitation of the study is that it is confined to findings from the developed economies; and that future research should endeavour to determine the effect of internal and external factors on the company's development towards sustainability in developing economies. Other limitations include omission of factors such as size of companies, culture, geographical area and industries. Future research should incorporate these factors into valuation to further strengthen the arguments of the relationships between CSR and CFP.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
6.0 參考文獻—References
 
Ameer, R. & Othman, R. (2012) Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal Business Ethics, 108 (1) June, pp.61-79.
 
Brusvang, K. (2012) Philip Morris USA Inc. & Corporate Social Responsibility - going up into flames? BSc. thesis, Aarhus University.
 
Carroll, A.B. & Shabana, K.M. (2010) The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (1) Jan, pp.85-105.
 
European Commission, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. [pdf] European Commission.
 
Galbreath, J. (2010) How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia. European Business Review, 22 (4) pp.441-431.
 
Hildebrand, D., San, S. & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2011) Corporate social responsibility: a corporate marketing perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 45 (9) pp.1353 - 1364.
 
Khanifar, H., Nazari, K., Emami, M. & Soltani, H.A. (2012) Impacts corporate social responsibility activities on company financial performance. Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3 (9) January, pp.583-592.
 
KPMG International, 2011. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2011. [pdf] KPMG International.
 
Leszczynska, A. (2012) Towards shareholders' value: an analysis of sustainability reports. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 112 (6) pp.911 - 928.
 
Marks & Spencer, 2012. The key lessons from the Plan A business case. [pdf] Unilever.
 
Melo, T. & Galan, J.I (2011) Effects of corporate social responsibility on brand value. Journal of Brand Management, 18 (6) pp. 423â€"437.
 
Nazari, K., Parvizi, M. & Emami, M. (2012) Corporate social responsibility: Approaches & perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3 (9) January, pp.554-563.
 
Nijhof, A.H.J. & Jeurissen, R.J.M. (2010) The glass ceiling of corporate social responsibility: Consequences of a business case approach towards CSR. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy, 30 (11) pp.618-631.
 
Peloza, J. & Shang. J (2010) How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academic Marketing Science, 39 (1) February, pp.117-135.
 
Unilever, 2011. Unilever Sustainable Living Plan Progress Report 2011. [pdf] Unilever.