Areal, Andreia, McIntosh, Bryan andSheppy, Bruce (2016) Hope and glory: an expanded social strategydiagnosis model to incorporate corporate social responsibility withinbusiness strategy. International Journal of Business PerformanceManagement, 17 (2). p. 117.Downloaded from: http://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/4260/The version presented here may differ from the published version or version of record. Ifyou intend to cite from the work you are advised to consult the publisher’s version:http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2016.075590Research at York St John (RaY) is an institutional repository. It supports the principles ofopen access by making the research outputs of the University available in digital form.Copyright of the items stored in RaY reside with the authors and/or other copyrightowners. Users may access full text items free of charge, and may download a copy forprivate study or non-commercial research. For further reuse terms, see licence termsgoverning individual outputs. Institutional Repository Policy StatementRaYResearch at the University of York St JohnFor more information please contact RaY at [email protected]1Hope and Glory: An expanded Social Strategy Diagnosis Model to incorporateCorporate Social Responsibility within Business StrategyAbstractCorporate Social Responsibility has been seen by corporations as a practice to adopt asan act of philanthropy. There have been attempts to expand the role of socialresponsibility to business problems however there has never been an attempt to considerthe strategic alignment of social outcomes to strategy. This article analyses the role ofstrategy by providing a review of strategy using Whittington’s generic strategies modeland expanding the same model to incorporate a social strategy model that supports theanecdotal idea that social responsibility can be potentially strategic. The paper centresits argument within the Indian context.Keywords: Business strategy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Shared Value, Bottomof the Pyramid.IntroductionIndia, Asia’s third largest economy, has registered an economic growth of 7.4% for2014 and the World Bank predicts that by the year 2025 India will contribute 6% to11% of the world’s GDP. However, the World Development Indicators point out that21.9% of the population of India still lives below the national poverty line.Academically, the Corporate Social Responsibility debate is long-standing. Authorshave not reached a consensus to what is exactly Corporate Social Responsibility andwhat value it adds to companies. There are divergent positions academically ondifferent approaches to strategy formulation and the view of shareholder value versusstakeholder responsibility has been discussed extensively.The Indian Government has tried to make mandatory for companies to spend 2% oftheir profits in Corporate Social Responsibility activities. However, lack of clarificationon the role that Corporate Social Responsibility has in the strategic activities of anycompany will not yield any visible outcome when it comes to translating a feasiblebusiness strategy to business practices.Arora and Puranik (2004) point out that CSR in India is still ‘in a confusing state’where companies stand divided between philanthropic obligations and sustainable2business strategy. A recent example is the case for Wal-Mart in India. Early in 2012, inan unprecedented move, the Indian Government allowed for the first time foreignretailers to open stores in the country. Companies like Wal-Mart, IKEA or Starbuckssaw a door of opportunity opening up to expand their business operations to the SouthAsia market. However, in November 2012, the first report of cases of bribery in WalMart’s operations in Mexico, Brazil, China and India came to light exposing violationof foreign investment rules that led to the immediate suspension of all the employees ofWal-Mart in India, including the Chief Financial Officer (The New York Times, 2012).This paper tries to address the complexity of the conceptualization of strategy and ofCorporate Social Responsibility and attempt to explain if Corporate SocialResponsibility can be a strategic tool for companies in India to obtain competitiveadvantage. For the purpose of this paper, the key topics to discuss will focus on theprescriptive and emergent view of business strategy and the profit maximisation versusprocessual debate, with a focus on alternative models of social responsibility: inparticular, the Bottom of the Pyramid and Creation of Shared Value. The outcome ofthis paper is to address the literature gap regarding the alignment of Corporate SocialResponsibility practices with business strategies and produce a diagnostic model, usingWhittington’s generic perspectives on strategy, to support the anecdotal idea thatCorporate Social Responsibility can be aligned with business practices.MethodologyThe methodology applied is a critical review of the relevant literature in corporate socialresponsibility and business strategy. The literature search focused on the use ofsecondary literature. The first step was to define the search parameters and a thoroughreview on literature that was relevant on the subject. The publications found were toobroad. To help to define the subject matter and refine the search, keywords weregenerated. Those keywords were applied to construct a relevance tree that posed thequestion ‘Can Corporate Social Responsibility be incorporated in business strategy?’This relevance tree led to the research of two main concepts – Corporate SocialResponsibility and Business Strategy – and those two concepts were further on refinedto other associated research terms like stakeholder theory, corporate governance,business ethics, microfinance and strategic corporate social responsibility. Thoseresearch terms were further deconstructed in other relevant search terms. To ensure that3the searches were objective and consistent the terms were catalogued relatively to theireligibility on the research question based on a pre-determined set of criteria. The criteriaapplied to the research included the date of publication, theory relevance and referencein other publications, position of support or contradiction to the central theme ofresearch, bias and methodological omissions. The second search with the appliedcriteria was refined in the secondary literature that addressed directly the topic inquestion.The limitation to this paper is the lack of primary data collected to determine thehypothesis posed. The validity of this paper is limited to a pure theoretical approach thatneeds to be further investigated with primary data collection.A strategic reviewThere has been a longstanding academic debate on the different definitions of strategy.The concept is subject to different interpretations and definitions according to theperception of reality of the strategist (Morgan, 1998). There are many theoreticalperspectives to the concept of strategy. Mintzberg (1998) created ten schools of strategythat can be classified in three groupings: the prescriptive nature of strategy (the design,the planning and the positioning schools); the descriptive nature of strategy (theentrepreneurial, the cognitive, the learning, the power, the cultural, and theenvironmental schools); and, the emergent nature of strategy (the configuration school).The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the debate to inform the readerand analyse Whittington’s Generic Perspectives on Strategy model (2001) to the topicin discussion, correlating when possible with Minztberg’s schools.Prescriptive versus Emergent StrategyThe prescriptive nature of strategy assumes that strategy formulation is a controlled,intentional and a prescriptive process (Argenti, 1974, Steiner, 1969, Ansoff, 1965).According to Whittington’s model (2001), both the Classical and the Systemic approachto strategy is prescriptive in nature. The Classical approach has its roots in the work ofauthorities such has Chandler (1962), Ansoff (1965) and Porter (1979). In the context ofMintzberg’s (1998) schools of thought it is synonymous of the Design, Planning, andPositioning school of strategy. The Design school of strategy is based on long-termplanning processes and assumes that strategy is a response to a constant and stable4environment. Ansoff (1965) considered that strategy in corporations should bedeveloped according to the environmental challenges presented and the S.W.O.T modelincorporates the vision of a controlled and conscious process of formal planning. Thisschool of thought is the most influential where strategy is configured through a fitbetween internal capabilities and external possibilities (Mintzberg, 1998). The Planningschool of strategy takes a formal approach to the creation of strategy with the creationof a series of steps from the situation analysis to the execution and control of thestrategic process (Ackoff, 1983). This school of strategy led to the popular scenarioplanning, a tool created in the predicament that strategies should be able to speculatepotential future outcomes. As described by Wack (1985) scenario planning is anexercise that is ‘less (reliant) on figures and more on insight’. The Positioning Schoolof strategy accepted the two previous schools of thought and extended them. Thisparticular school of thought addresses the dominance of the competitive environment.The dominant strategic approach to the competitive environment theory is Porter’s FiveForces Model in which the author created a framework to assess the degree of intensityof each force and the degree of attractiveness in the industry in order to achievecompetitive advantage (Porter, 1979). Porter (1980) argues that ‘competitive strategy isabout developing a defendable position in an industry.’The main difference between these three schools of thought in the deliberate process ofstrategy is that while the design and planning school don’t consider any limitations onstrategies, the positioning school argues that a company must choose a unique strategy(Mintzberg et al, 1998). The prescriptive stream gives a blueprint of strategyformulation by assuming that the environment where a company operates is stable andstrategy formulation is responding to that environment. The analysis of the external andthe internal environment is of a long-term monitoring.The Systemic approach to strategy shares the same long-term perspective of strategicplanning as the Classical approach. Granovetter (1985) argues that social relationsinfluence economic structures. However, this approach also emphasises a respect for theuse of social resources over profit maximization, which will be further explored in thefollowing section. The systemic approach takes a sociologic, anthropologic, politicalscience and historic perspective to the development of strategy (Granovetter, 1985).This perspective aligns with the Entrepreneurial school, the Cognitive school and theCultural School. The Entrepreneurial school of strategy addresses the soft elements5of leadership as the basis for strategy formation unlike the classical approach thatrecognises the figure of the architect however emphasises the conceptualisation ofstrategy over leadership (Mintzberg, 1998). This school of strategy emphasises vision ordirection as the key element to the construction of strategy. The approach is broadlydeliberate however one can argue that the vision is more of ‘an image rather than anarticulated plan’ (Mintzberg, 1998). The Cognitive school of strategy, takes theperception of strategy as a image and explored further strategy formation usingcognitive psychology: these authors see strategy as an interpretation of the world(Mintzberg, 1998). One of the most prominent authors Simon (1957) saw strategy as acomplex and large event that derives from the capability of the decision-maker toprocess information. Makridakis (1990) recognised that judgemental bias haveconsequences to the decision-making process. The Cultural school of strategy roots itsideology in the notion that culture maintains strategic stability (Mintzberg, 1998). Inthis perspective, organisational culture is a definitive factor to strategy creation as the‘expressive social tissue’ (Pettigrew, 1985). This school of thought can be consideredthe one most closely associated with the systemic perspective, as it perceives strategyformation as a process of social interaction based on shared beliefs and values(Mintzberg, 1998).Both the classical and systemic approach to strategy interrelates and configures thelong-term planning of a company that makes the configuration of the internal and theexternal environment as the key to achieve competitiveness. However this process doesnot exist without criticism. The concept of emergent strategies as proposed byWhittington (2001) through the generic strategies model based on the work developedby authors such has Henderson (1989) and Mintzberg (1998, 1985) is the fiercest criticto the classical approach, which will be discussed in the next section.Whittington’s classical and systemic approach can be applicable to the Indian context.A recent report by McKinsey Global Institute (2014) revealed that productivity growthand private consumption were the main drivers for the recent poverty reduction in thecountry, however the same report states that the empowerment gap could be greatlyreduced if India creates more non-farm jobs and increases public spending on basicservices. The potential growth is barred due to the prevalence of an unorganised sectorand sub-scale enterprises (McKinsey Global Institute, 2014). The authors are of theopinion that the classical and systemic approach to strategy would be a beneficial tool to6governmental and small enterprises alike. The lack of long-term strategic view can be apotential contributor to the inertia to reduce the empowerment gap. McKinsey’s (2014)report argues that each state of India, with central government support, should develop along-term strategy considering the internal and external constraints of each state. Thiswill be further investigated with the debate between profit maximisation and pluralistoutcome of strategy.The configuration of the Emergent Strategy builds on the critiques to the formalizedstrategic planning process and acknowledges that the environment can be disruptive.This school of thought asserts that companies should be constantly monitoring theinternal and external environment and organisations should be prepared for constantchange (Christensen and Overdorf, 2000, Miller and Morris, 1999, Brown andEisenhardt, 1998, Tushman and Anderson, 1997, D’Aveni, 1994). Mintzberg (1987)constructed the idea of emergent strategies by criticizing the deliberate process. Thepremise of his reasoning is that: the future is impossible to be predicted; long-term goalsare not always foreseen; culture and leadership in an organisation are important when itcomes to strategic decisions; deciding on what strategy to pursue and implementing itare interrelated processes. This stream of thought gives relevance to the organisationaland social aspects of strategic formation and not to the construction of detailed plans.According to Whittington’s model (2001) the Evolutionary and Processual schools ofthought are emergent in nature. These two schools of thought assume that no companycan no longer forecast into the future or cope with the complexities of a world thatperpetually changes by relying on one deliberate strategy (Grant, 2010). TheEvolutionary approach argues that strategy emerges from natural competition – onlythe stronger will survive (Henderson, 1989, Alchian, 1950). The Environmental schoolperceives strategy as a mirroring process by positioning the external environment as thecentral element in strategy formation (Mintzberg, 1998). The premise is that theorganisation is a passive element that needs to respond to the external forces as thecontingent approach to strategy, in this form, strategy emerges as a reaction to theexternal environment (Miller, 1979). The Configuration school of strategy debatesthat strategy it doesn’t entail change but rather continuity. Minztberg (1998) argues thatstrategy can be described as a stable configuration, however the same configuration willonly be permanent for a certain period of time. The same author argues that there willbe some process of transformation that inevitably will disrupt the stability. The key for a7successful strategic management is to sustain stability but also recognise the need forcreative destruction as a transformation process. Therefore, strategy can be considered aplan, pattern, position, perspective and a ploy (Mintzberg, 1998).The Processual approach sees strategy as a messy and complex phenomenon(Whittington, 2001). This approach resonates with the Learning and Power schools ofstrategy (Mintzberg, 1998). The Learning school of strategy assumes thatorganisations are complex and that patterns of collective behaviour emerge over time,which in turn will lead to a management by change (Mintzberg, 1998). Quinn (1980)argues that strategy is an incremental process rather than an isolated event. Nelson andWinter (1982) build on Quinn’s premise and state that strategy is an evolutionaryprocess. Mintzberg (1987) designs an image of ‘crafting strategy’ remarking thatstrategy can occur in three ways: the intended strategy or the plan laid by the firm; therealized strategy, the strategy which is in fact pursued by the company and theunrealized strategy the plan left behind due to changing circumstances in theenvironment; the emergent strategy, derives from experience and learning from all theother strategies and meets the external environment’s needs and demands. The Powerschool of strategy also resonates with the Processual perspective. According toMintzberg (1998) power surrounds the organisation. The author makes the distinctionbetween micro (internal) and macro (external) power and argues that politics greatlyinfluence the decision-making process through a position of bargaining and negotiationwith different stakeholders (Bolman and Deal, 1997). Hence, the same authors arguethat strategy can’t be a deliberate process when perception and interests in theorganisation are prominent in an organisation.A recent argument against Mintzberg theory is the research of Miller and Ireland (2005)on the role of intuition in strategic decision-making. For these authors’ examples ofwhat Mintzberg would call emergent strategies such as the Honda entry in U.S bikemarket, the Southwest Airlines or the Walkman, Miller and Ireland refer to as examplesof intuition. The authors recognize the importance of ‘exploration’ in the rapid andchanging environment of the 21st century but the argument is that exploring newstrategies should be controlled. The so called ‘hunch’ is only important when planningfor ambiguous futures and the authors’ remark that they are often flawed giving theexample of FedEx Zap Mail or America Online’s Pittman.8The notion of an emergent process to strategy formation is not new in the Indiancontext. Rajdou, Prabhu and Ahuja (2012) address the concept of Jugaad Innovation.This concept can be defined as a flexible approach to the creation of products andservices in the Indian sub-continent. One of the examples of a company that pursuedsuccessfully a strategy in a disruptive environment is the Tata Group. Tata Motors, in2009, launched the £1190 (one lakh of rupees) Nano which is the epitome of thecheapest car in the world. The manufacture of this particular vehicle involved nonlinearthinking and improvisation on their business strategy (Rajdou, Prabhu, Ahuja, 2012).McGrath (2013) coined the term transient advantage to express the idea of rapidstrategic formation. The core focus for this author is that in order for organisations tosurvive in an environment with rapid transformation strategy needs to emerge as a morefluid process – emergent.In conclusion, there is a primal distinction between the two processes analyses. Whilethe deliberate process focuses on control and realized intent the emergent processemphasizes the concept of learning and change. These two strategic processes form thefirst part of Whittington’s generic model (2001) and is the strategic foundation for thesocial strategy diagnosis model (Figure 1).Figure 1: Whittington’s generic strategy model (2001)Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Reality or Utopia?Throughout time, from Aristotle’s to Adam Smith, the role of business in society hasalways been debated. On one side, are those that see the individual’s morality shaped bythe society he/she is inserted in and therefore in order for the individual to be a moralbeing he/she must be part of a moral society; on the other side, are those that regardself-interest as the prevalent drive in society’s welfare, disregarding kindness oraltruism. This debate over the decades transpired to business, specifically on whatshould be the role of business in society. Whittington’s generic strategy model (2001)formulates two outcomes to a business strategy: profit maximisation or a pluralisticoutcome. These two will be the main focus for the debate on this section in arguing whythis model is flawed and how it can be extended to incorporate modern realitiesconcerning social responsibility of businesses.9Friedman (1970) argued that ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase itsProfits’. This view of business builds on the premise that the only interest to berespected is the creation of shareholder value. Hayek (cited in Harrigan, 2010) builds onthe idea of creation of shareholder value and argues that social considerations inbusiness produce ‘undesirable results’. Friedman (1970) refuses to acknowledge socialresponsibility of business stating that that it is a characteristic bound to individuals andnot companies. The author takes the position once assumed by Adam Smith (1776) andargues that business is created to ‘(…) use its resources and engage in activitiesdesigned to increase its profits.’ (Friedman, 1970) The Classical and Evolutionaryschools of strategy pursue profit maximisation (Whittington, 2001). While the Classicalapproach is the epitome of Adam Smith’s economic views of self-interest of the CEOand top management in securing profit maximisation, the evolutionary approachperceives that markets will secure profits through natural competition (Henderson,1989). This perspective of maximisation of profit has been criticised. Some authorsdisagree on the perspective that shareholder and stakeholder value are not boundtogether in zero-sum terms (Harrigan, 2010). Prahalad (2010) argues that serving thepoverty line is actually a new market opportunity and Cadbury (2002) objects toFriedman’s unitary point of view. These criticisms build on the conceptualization of apluralistic society herein lay in Whittington’s Processual and Systemic schools ofstrategy.McGuire (1963) states that ‘A pluralistic society is one in which there is widedecentralization and diversity of power concentration.’ Power is distributed amongsociety. Handy (2002) builds in the assertion of the pluralistic view by stating thatbusinesses have a broader role in society. For this author profits as a mere end isinsufficient. Whittington’s Processual and Systemic schools of strategy address thepluralistic aspect of strategy. The Processual approach will pursue the optimal solutionthat will ‘satisfy’ the interested parties (Whittington, 2001), while the Systemic schoolof strategy factors in social relations with the process of strategy formation(Granovetter, 1985). The advantage of pluralism is the view of society as a whole witha variance of stakeholders interfacing in society. The fiercest critic to the same notion ofpluralism is that whatever sustains the profitability of the company will be the primaryfocus and therefore the positive repercussions it has in society will be a simpleconsequence of business actions (Friedman, 2005). (Figure 2)10In an Indian context, one can argue that there is an active struggle between profitmaximisation and a pluralistic approach. Malhotra (2014) argues that there arefundamental five key areas that need strategic development in the country from both theprivate, non-for-profit and government sector: infrastructure, inefficiency, inequality,innovation and independence (the five i’s). The same author argues that lack of strategicinitiative to support infrastructure development; innovation creation and elimination ofpoverty and inequality prevent the country to be an economic powerhouse. This is thesame argument this paper makes. There is a comprehensive lack of strategic formulationthat addresses the perspective of a pluralistic outcome as envisioned by Whittington’smodel (2001). The next section will analyse the possible alternatives to this problematicby extending the Generic Strategy Model as designed by Whittington (2001).Figure 2: Whittington’s generic strategy model (2001)When addressing the outcomes of strategy, in particular the pluralistic approach ofstrategy the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility arises in discussion. CorporateSocial Responsibility (CSR) can be defined as ‘the continuing commitment by businessto behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the qualityof life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and societyat large.’ (WBCSD, 2000). Carroll (1979, in Bucholtz and Carroll, 2009) presentedCSR as a responsibility of business to encompass the economic, legal, ethical anddiscretionary expectations that society imposes. Carroll’s conceptualization of the CSRpyramid portrays four components. The basic building block is the financialsustainability of the company. Businesses also must comply with the law of the countrythey operate in. The ethical responsibility of business translates into acting in what thesociety considers to be right, just and fair. Finally, the discretionary component is theexpectation upon the business to act as good corporate citizens (Bucholtz and Carroll,2009). For Carroll (1991) the discretionary responsibility is based on the desire ofbusinesses to engage in social actions such as corporate giving, employee volunteering,partnerships with local governments and other entities and involvement with thecommunity.The question this paper debates is whether Corporate Social Responsibility canpotentially play an active part in delivering either a prescriptive or an emergent strategy.This paper also debates if there are other social responsibility models that can be appliedin a strategic context using Whittington’s generic strategies model as a basis.11Bernstein (2010) argues that Corporate Social Responsibility became synonyms of aidwhere industrialised countries and large multinationals give large sums of moneythrough their taxes to help causes in sub-developed countries. The same author remarksthat companies at large have been targeted for social malpractices whether aresweatshops, child labour or fair trade but organizations that are the proponents of theconcept of social responsibility have also largely failed in overseeing that theirprinciples are applied throughout the organization. One can argue that companies driftfrom pursuing acts of pure philanthropy to environmental sustainability to the pursuit ofcreation of shared value, which will be shortly discussed (Rangan, Chase and Karim,2015). In sum, there is a lack of strategic alignment. Our reasoning behind the lack ofstrategic alignment with Corporate Social responsibility activities places CSR in thesocial strategy diagnosis model in the centre with a ‘stuck in the middle’ approach(Figure 3).An alternative to the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility is the Bottom of thePyramid. Prahalad (2010) states that ‘(…) poverty alleviation can become a businessdevelopment task (…)’. For the author there are fundamentally three markets in whichbusiness can cater their products for: the mature economy, the aspiring middle classand, the Bottom of the Pyramid. The general assumption multinationals make is thatthere is no purchasing power in the Bottom of the Pyramid. For the proponents of theconcept of Bottom of the Pyramid is that the assumption is flawed. The reasoning is thatthe Bottom of the Pyramid is a consumer market that leads businesses to innovate theirbusiness models in order to develop new products and services. A recent research bySimanis and Duke (2014) argues that the concept of the Bottom of the Pyramid is notbeen successful. The argument these authors make is that profitability at the bottom ofthe pyramid is achievable but needs strategic alignment. The reason behind the lack ofstrategic alignment with the products and services sold at the Bottom of the Pyramid isprimarily to due with the fact companies don’t understand two fundamental problems:consumer behaviour of people at the Bottom of the Pyramid and product creation anddelivery to the final consumer (Simanis and Duke, 2014). We are of the same opinionwhen it comes to lack of strategic integration to social responsible activities. Thisconcept is supported by the likes of Bernstein (2010). This author develops a criticapproach to the western countries ideas of sustainable development by stating that it is12ridiculous to pursue economic growth in developing countries by advocating ‘(…)global standards of labour, environment and so on (…)’. Business should focus inachieving profitability and pressures for global standards should be on government’sshoulders and legislature. Danone, the French multinational supplier of dairy productsand bottled water, has set up a BOP division where it develops business models aimedat making healthy food affordable and accessible to low-income people in developingnations. The company recently developed Fundooz which is a £0, 05 milk dessert soldonly in Northern India. Danone has posted sales targets of nearly 7% in 2010 and it’sconsidered one of the best performers in the food industry (Radjou, Prabhu, Ahuja,2012). Based on the above we considered that the Bottom of the Pyramid adopts apluralistic outcome to strategy pursuit through the creation of products and services thatcater low-income societies. (Figure 3)An opposite view to the concept of the Bottom of the Pyramid is that of Porter andKramer (2002) that remark that philanthropy has been used as public relations toenhance the company’s brand image. The argument that is brought to light is thatcompanies to improve competitiveness can use philanthropy as a competitive advantageweapon. Porter and Kramer by combining the external and internal perspectives of theindustry argue that companies should also include in their strategic position the‘combined social and economic benefit’. The authors created the concept of Creation ofShared Value (CSV). The authors argue that CSV is not charity or social responsibility:it is a new way to achieve economic success. Shared value is defined as ‘(…) policiesand operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company whilesimultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities inwhich it operates.’ (Porter and Kramer, 2011) For the authors CSV is re-inventingproducts and markets: redefining productivity in the value chain; or, building supportiveindustry clusters. Especially relevant is the fact that these two authors explicitly statethat CSV supersedes CSR. The authors take a critique position regarding CSR statingit’s all about philanthropy due to external pressures and that it focuses on the company’sreputation while, CSV’s purpose is to bring economic and societal benefits relative tocost; it is the base of profit maximization. Take PepsiCo’s example of reduction ofwater consumption throughout the supply chain. The company needed drastically to useefficiently the water consumed in their factories in order to improve product outputs andreduce costs. They developed an eco-friendly agronomic technique called ‘direct13seeding’ of rice paddies. Direct seeding avoids puddling, transplanting and growing instanding water (three operations that are water-intensive when planting rice). With thistechnique the company is saving on average 30% of the usual requirement of water inpaddy cultivation. Indirectly, the company is also contributing with this technique for a70% cut of greenhouse emissions. Therefore, the CSV model is closely positioned in theprofit maximisation outcome of strategy (Porter and Kramer, 2011) (Figure 3).Figure 3: Social Strategy Diagnosis ModelThe Social Strategy Diagnosis ModelCorporate Social Responsibility has been the synonymous of ‘doing good’, ‘citizenship,philanthropy, sustainability’, and ‘discretionary’, ‘separate from profit maximization’(Porter and Kramer, 2011). The stellar example of CSR is the British cosmetic retailerand manufacturer, The Body Shop, with the epitome of doing business responsible andpioneering fair trade practices across the globe. Without any demerit to its principles thecompany’s view of doing the right way of business has led to a steady decline of itssales figures throughout the year and consequently its profits. The company’s CSRvision lacks on strategic integration and that is the reason why the CSR vector is in themiddle of the model. The CSR ideology lacks on a business strategy that can translateinto feasible business practices. This paper argues that beyond pure philanthropy CSRlacks improvements across the value chain in order to deliver value; lacks innovation inbusiness models that are specifically designed to address the challenges of emergenteconomies; social programmes should be aligned with the company’s purpose andvalues and deliver value that creates both social and stakeholder value; top managementshould be actively involved in the creation of a CSR strategy that delivers an intendedoutcome.The Bottom of the Pyramid model is closely associated with a pluralistic view. Take forinstance Aravind Eye Care in India. There are 9 million people in India that suffer fromsome degree of eyesight illness. Dr. Padmashree Venkataswamy had a vision toeradicate blindness in the state of Tamil Nadu, in India, by providing free eye careservices to the poor, specifically cataract surgeries. He set up several eye camps in orderto reach to rural communities. Each eye camp will have a sponsor that cover theexpenses for the medical care and other expenses related to the organization of thecamp. This system is financially self-supporting and never depended on any grants or14donations from the Government of India (Prahalad, 2010). This example can beconsidered of a planned, intentional strategy of delivering eye care throughout the stateof Tamil Nadu but the intention is to be self-sustainable and to cater to those at thepoverty line and therefore it is positioned as a pluralistic outcome of strategy.The reason behind CSV positioning as a profit maximisation outcome of strategy isdependent upon the fact that its value is to bring economic and social benefits relativelyto cost. The idea is to create profit maximization while creating in consequencecommunity value creation. It’s not against capitalism; instead it considers what is thenext step of the ideology of capitalism. Nespresso is one of the leading coffee brands,recognized by the adverts with George Clooney, the American actor. Nespresso is partof Nestle, one of the largest multinationals in the world. Nestle has used the idea ofCSV effectively in its business practices. The clusters of companies, suppliers, serviceproviders, and IT infrastructure and so on in the same geographical area influenceproductivity and innovation. Coffee regions are also clusters for productivity andinnovation if you are in the coffee making industry. Nestle sought out to look for newprocurement practices, such has agricultural, technical, financial, and logistical in eachcoffee region to improve the quality of local production. In the process the company hadto secure essential agricultural inputs such has plant stock, fertilizers and irrigationequipment; strengthen regional farmers’ cooperation and finance wet-milling facilities.This led to an intensive collaboration with Rainforest Alliance, a worldwide NGO,which taught the farmers sustainable practices in coffee production. This in turn benefitNestle in terms of improving operations productivity and quality of coffee produced(Porter and Kramer, 2011).The Social Strategy Diagnosis model is a diagnostic tool that used Whittington (2001)Generic Strategic model as the starting point on how to convert social enterprisespractices in feasible strategic directions. According to the framework there are 9possible strategic positioning: The classical proposition formulated by Whittington’s(2001) classical (position 1), evolutionary (position 2), systemic (position 3) and,processual (position 4). The Neo-Classical positioning of the company for prescriptiveCSV strategic positioning (position 5) and the Progressive positioning in regards thecreation of shared value as an emergent process (position 6). The Method positioningstrategically addresses the needs of the BOP market by following a planned strategy15(position 7), while the Development positioning creates emergent strategies that cater tothe BOP market (position 8) and the equidistant positioning is located in the intersectionbetween the quadrants and represents the CSR vector (position 9/Figure 4). Theargument this paper makes is that by using this tool companies should be able to assesstheir strategic position in regards to the development of new products and services inemergent markets, specifically in India. At present, there are only models of socialenterprise and sustainability that have been developed and that focus on either themarket to be served or the operational effectiveness of companies. We argue that thesemodels can be included and designed with a strategic purpose.This paper also argues that Corporate Social Responsibility has a strategic potential thatis unfulfilled and therefore at present is ‘stuck in the middle’. The authors don’tdisregard the eventual possibility for the modification of the present model thataddresses a strategic shift in case Corporate Social Responsibility becomes trulystrategic.Figure 4: Social Strategy Diagnosis ModelConclusionFrom the above review it can be highlighted that Corporate Social Responsibility has astrategic potential that is unfulfilled. The paper started by presenting a review ofWhittington’s generic strategy model with an Indian perspective to strategy formation.Finally, the research paper addressed the topic of Corporate Social Responsibility andthe lack of strategic focus. The premise used is that an expanded strategy model shouldbe considered when addressing Corporate Social Responsibility and that the concepts ofBottom of the Pyramid and Creation of Shared Value should be considered asalternative models of strategic intent towards social responsibility.16ReferencesAckoff, R. L., 1983, Beyond Prediction and Preparation, Journal of ManagementStudies, January, pp. 59-69.Ansoff, H.I., 1965, Corporate Strategy, 1st Edition, and New York: McGraw Hill.Argenti, J., 1974, Systematic Corporate Planning, London: Nelson.Arora, B., Puranik, R., 2004, A Review of Corporate Social Responsibility in India,Palgrave Macmillan, 47 (3), pp. 93 -100.Bajaj, V., 2012, India Unit of Wal-Mart suspends employees, The New York Times,Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/business/global/wal-marts-indiaventure-suspends-executives-as-part-of-bribery-inquiry.html?_r=1&Bernstein, A., 2010, The case for business in developing economies, 1st Edition,Johannesburg: Penguin Books.Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K.M., 1998, Competing on the Edge: Strategy asstructured chaos, 4th Edition, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Bucholtz, A.K., and Carroll, A. B., 2009, Business and Society: Ethics and StakeholderManagement, 8th Edition, Canada: Cengage Learning.Chahoud, T., 2007, Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in India –Assessing the UN Global Compact’s Role, Bonn: German Development Institute.Christensen, C.M., and Overdorf, M., 2000, Meeting the Challenge of DisruptiveChange, Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000, pp. 66 – 78.Collins, D., and Montgomery, C. A., 1995, Competing on resources: strategy in the1990’s, Harvard Business Review, July – August, pp. 118 -128.D’Aveni, R. A., 1994, Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategicmanoeuvring, 1st Edition, New York: The Free Press.Davis, K., Blomstrom, R. L., 1975, Business and Society: Environment andResponsibility, 3rd Edition, New York: McGraw Hill.Friedman, M., 1970, The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its profits,New York Times Magazine.Granovetter, M., 1985, Economic Action and Social Structure, American Journal ofSociology, Volume 91, Issue 3, pp. 481-510.Grant, R. M., 2010, Contemporary Strategy Analysis, UK: Wiley Publishers.Handy, C., 2002, What’s a business for? Harvard Business Review, December 2002, pp.49 – 55.17Harrigan, B., 2010, Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century: Debate, Modelsand Practices across Government, Law and Business, 1st Edition, Cheltenham: MPGBooks Group.Henderson, B.D., 1989, The Origin of Strategy, Harvard Business Review, NovemberDecember, pp. 139 – 143.Johnson, G., Scholes, K., and Whittington, R., 1998, Exploring Corporate Strategy, 8thEdition, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Karim, S., 2015, The Truth about CSR, Harvard Business Review, January –February,pp. 4 – 9.Kay, J., 1993, Foundations of Corporate Success, 4th Edition, New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Malhotra, V., 2014, India has to Evolve, Knowledge at Wharton, Available on:http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/mckinseys-vikram-malhotra-indiaevolve/.McGrath, R. G., 2013, Transient Advantage, Harvard Business Review, June, pp. 4 –10.McGuire, J.W., 1963, Business and Society, 1st Edition, New York: McGraw Hill.McKinsey Global Institute, 2014, From poverty to empowerment: India’s imperative forjobs, growth, and effective basic services, Available on: www.mckinsey.com/mgiMiller, C.C., and Ireland, R.D., 2005, Intuition in strategic decision making: friend orfoe in the fast-paced 21st century? Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19, No. 1,pp. 19 – 30.Miller, W. L., and Morris, L., 1999, 4th Generation R&D, 2nd Edition, New York: JohnWiley & Sons.Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., and Lampel, J., 1998, Strategy Safari, New York: TheFree Press.Mintzberg, H., 1987, Crafting Strategy, Harvard Business Review, July 1987, pp. 66 –75.Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A., 1985, Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6 pp. 257-272.Morgan, G., 1998, Images of Organization, 3rd Edition, California: Sage PublicationsInc.Porter, M. E., and Kramer, M. R., 2011, Creating Shared Value, Harvard BusinessReview, January – February 2011, pp. 4 – 17.18Porter, M.E., and Kramer, M. R., 2002, The Competitive Advantage of CorporatePhilanthropy, Harvard Business Review, December 2002, pp. 5 – 16.Porter, 1980, Competitive Strategy, 3rd Edition, New York: Free Press.Porter, M.E., 1979, How competitive forces shape strategy, Harvard Business Review(March/April).Prahalad, C.K., 2009, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Povertythrough Profits, 5th Edition, New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing.Prahalad, C.K., and Hamel, G., 1990, The core competence of the organization,Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), pp. 79 – 91.Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., Ahuja, S., 2012, Jugaad Innovation: A frugal and flexibleapproach to innovation for the 21st century, London: Random House Group Limited.Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 1997, Research Methods for Business Students,London: Financial Times, Pitman Publishing.Simanis, E., and Duke, D., 2014, Profits at the Bottom of the Pyramid, HarvardBusiness Review, October, pp. 4 – 9.Stalk G. Jnr, Evans, P., and Schulman, L.E., 1992, Competing on capabilities: the newrules of corporate strategy, Harvard Business Review, March –April, pp. 57 -70.Steiner, G.A., 1969, Top Management Planning, London: MacMillan.The World Bank, 2013, World Development Indicators, Available from:http://data.worldbank.org/country/india#cp_wdiTuschman, M. L., and Anderson, P., 1997, Managing Strategic Innovation and Change,1st Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.Wack, P., 1985, Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead, Harvard Business Review,September-October, pp. 73-89.Whittington, R., 2001, What is strategy – and does it matter?, 2nd Edition, London:Thomson Learning.World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2000, Corporate SocialResponsibility: making good business sense, London: Red Letter Design.19FiguresPrescriptive EmergentFigure 1: Whittington’s generic strategy model (2001)Figure 2: Whittington’s generic strategy model (2001)20Figure 3: Social Strategy Diagnosis ModelFigure 4: Social Strategy Diagnosis Model
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
