Building A Corporate Socially Responsible Brand: An Investigation Of Organizational Complexity

Past research has suggested that developing CSR linked brands is a complex activity that needs to consider the social issues being addressed as well as multiple facets of organisational activities. This paper proposes that organisational activities need to be considered at four different levels – corporate brand, product/line brands, location/functional activities and supply chain issues. The four activities are discussed and implications for developing CSRleveraged brands are explored. Introduction Interest in CSR is on the rise. According to KPMG’s (2005) international survey of corporate responsibility reporting, there are a growing number of the top 250 global firms that report on social responsibility at least as part of their annual reports (64%), and 52% of the top 250 produce separate reports on social responsibility. Many international organisations’ web pages provide information on their integration of responsibility into the corporate brand. Having a report does not necessarily mean that an organisation is socially responsible, but it does suggest that there is interest and an attempt to integrate CSR into the overall organisational philosophy. It is difficult to adapt a brand to suit changing consumer priorities without also adapting, or diluting, the brand’s essence (Rekom et al., 2006). But since brand personality is a key component of brand equity and brand associations (Pappu et al., 2005) and has a positive influence on brand associations (Freling and Forbes, 2005), brands that seek to present a socially responsible personality should integrate CSR principles into organisational values and personalities (Kitchen, 2003). This should be done not simply because CSR is seen to differentiate the organisation, but that CSR has an inherent value to the organisation (Johnson, 2003). This requires the organisation to understand how activities might impact on all its stakeholders (Lewis, 2003). The implementing of a socially responsible brand is not straightforward (Knox and Maklan, 2004) and some expected benefits do not necessarily eventuate (Ginsberg and Bloom, 2004; Kitchen, 2003). CSR issues are indeed complex (Polonsky and Jevons, 2005), however brands seeking to define themselves as responsible need to recognise that a range of organisational activities, both directly and indirectly controlled by the firm, will impact on the organisations ability to claim it is acting responsibly in a verifiable way. Responsibility must be integrated into organisational action, which is then communicated to external and internal stakeholders (Kitchen, 2003; Maio, 2003). Responsibility is therefore not simply a promotional tool (Frankental, 2001), but is a core business activity (Bhattacharya et al., 2004). While there are multiple levels of responsibility in regards to social issues (Polonsky and Jevons, 2005), organisations need to consider whether activities at multiple levels within the organisation – a) corporate, b) product, c) functional/locational or d) within supply chains are consistent with the purported CSR positioning. In this paper we develop the concept of organisational complexity covering these four issues. Organisational Complexity Firms and their brands operate in complex networks of business units (Kapelus, 2002). Can organisations effectively undertake CSR branding activities across their entire extended production system, which includes internal and external activities? This question is critical as consumers and other stakeholders have a set of expectations about organisations, which may go beyond any explicit ‘promises’ made in CSR position. For example, there have been situations where firms have been criticised because of the actions of their independent suppliers. We have identified four types of organisational complexity that need to be considered prior to deciding to position a brand as being socially responsible: 1) Overall Corporate Brand; 2) Multiple Products and Brands; 3) Functional Activities and 4) Supply Chain issues.