Perceptions and Definitions of Social Responsibility

This is one of three Issue Briefing Notes produced by a partnership of six sustainable development-oriented non-governmental organizations, including three international organizations and three organizations based in developing countries. The Issue Briefing Notes present a general overview of three issues that deserve particular attention in discussions on the possible development by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for international Social Responsibility standards. They address issues related to small and medium-sided enterprises (SMEs); stakeholder capacity to engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR); and national differences in CSR definitions and priorities. While written with an international focus, the papers are drawn particularly on insights from Chile, India and South Africa. For more information, please visit • This paper does not seek to describe in detail what " social responsibility " (SR) means in different countries. Instead, it demonstrates that conceptions of what constitutes a " responsible " organization or enterprise inevitably differ between and within countries, and outlines the fundamental reasons for this. • Conceptions of SR differ according to national social and economic priorities—which are themselves influenced by historical and cultural factors—and according to the different types of social actors that are demanding action on these priorities. • The terminology used to refer to social responsibility is important, having particular connotations in different locations and constituencies. • Awareness of and interest in SR vary widely between and within countries, and the drivers for engagement with the agenda apply more in some locations and sectors and to some types of organizations than others. • There is a risk that an international standard on SR is seen as a tool for a narrow subset of business organizations, and as a market entry requirement for their suppliers. It will be rejected by other stakeholders unless it leads to real social and environmental improvements within an organization's local context. • Significant progress is hampered by some key unresolved issues, such as the philanthropy-core activities divide; the voluntary-regulatory divide; the integration of social, environmental and economic issues; and the question of harmonization of specific national SR agendas. • The development of an international standard on SR must take into account the need for flexibility, which allows space for different national priorities and themes; ensures wide applicability, particularly for organizations of varying size and influence; and allows for evolution over time. Flexibility will be necessary in terms of content as well as implementation.