Archives of Design Research

Copyright : This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted educational and non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is one of the earliest and fundamental concepts in the academic study of business and society relations (Windsor, 2001). Over the last few decades, there have been increasing concerns about integrating social and environmental issues and problems with business operations, especially with regard to decision-making processes and outcomes. The importance, here, lies in distinguishing the difference between our current notion of CSR from that of the philanthropic role taken by many companies in the past. Indeed CSR claims to go beyond charity and requires that a responsible company pay attention to the quality of management, its products and services, and its impact on all stakeholders and on the environment when making decisions (Rowe, 2006). This mandates a fundamental rethinking of how CSR is effectively understood and delivered in society through both tangible and intangible way and also on how CSR should be taken into account while formulating corporate strategy.

It has been suggested that design provides unprecedented opportunity to proactively translate the principles of CSR into manufactured goods, as well as potential services, through myriad elements: products, packages, corporate identity, advertising, and retail entertainment, greatly influencing our daily lives (Papanek 1985; Whiteley 1993; Van Hemel 1998; McDonough & Braungart 2003; Manzini 2009; Morelli 2007; Shedroff 2009; Fiksel 2009; Esslinger, 2009). However, frequently, organisations have no understanding of how design impacts their business (notably, in terms of CSR), and in so doing fail to consider how to manage design to deliver its contribution to CSR, as well as the overall goal of business.

The reasons for this lack of attention are threefold: first of all, the ambiguity in the term “design” as the word ‘design’ has various meaning and associations. Design is simultaneously an object, a process, and a function. Furthermore, as the technology has rapidly changed, new types of design and multidisciplinary disciplines have emerged in the twenty-first century. Many different categorizations of design outcomes have been proposed, varying in complexity (Chick & Micklethwaite 2011). Consequently the various ways of interpretation of design passively influence top management's lack of understanding of where design can contribute to the overall goals of CSR and what activities in user experience design can influence adherence to CSR practices. Second, a wide gap of educational experience makes designers different from traditional management disciplines such as finance, marketing, accounting and operations. In this respect, Walker (1990), defined the characteristics of designer's thinking process as the followings: ‘holistic, lateral, synthetic, and solution-led style’ compared with those of marketers as ‘serialist, linear, analytic, and problem-oriented style’. Theses characteristics result in a cursory understanding of design amongst many business practitioners and designers’ lack of awareness of many organisational issues relating to financial, social and environmental aspects (Cooper et al., 2009). As a result, many organisations fail to possess appropriate understanding about the crucial role of design in addressing societal concerns when they make decisions or manage design. Third, is the inherent notion of styling that surrounds the design field. Many managers and even many designers consider the process of design to be an art rather than a manageable practice or a discipline that contributes to problem solving complex issues (Olson et al., 1997).

Accordingly the central aim of this article is to identify the important role of design to play in helping organisations implement CSR practices in a holistic sense, and to demonstrate where design can contribute to the overall goals of CSR and what design activities can influence adherence to CSR practices. The primary research questions are as follows: 1) what is the focus of CSR practices in different types of firms, and 2) where in CSR actions are design decisions incorporated.

This paper is structured as follows. First, a background to the study is provided and this study's arguments are developed by briefly exploring the literature of CSR and design and the interrelationship between CSR and design. Next this study's research method and analytical framework are explained, with which to investigate where design can contribute to the overall goals of CSR and what activities of design can influence adherence to CSR practices depending on industrial context. This is followed by a brief review of the comparison of the different CSR orientations and its connection to design input in product-oriented companies and service-oriented companies.

In order to support the discussion about the importance of design and integrated design approach in addressing CSR, this article addresses the relationship between CSR policy and design input by evaluating CSR-related documentary evidence produced by eight companies. Two completely different industries are therefore considered: retail industry as a service-oriented business and electronic goods companies as a product-oriented business. As suggested by Porter & Kramer (2002; 2006), depending on the specific corporate context, compelling issues of CSR will vary in nature and importance from industry to industry. Accordingly, this context-focused CSR approach that uses each business’s unique expertise and know-how, will possibly affect the interface with design. With regard to the selection of companies, overall ranking in CSR performance (i.e. Dow Jones Sustainability Index (2013), Corporate Social Responsibility Index (2013) by Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, and ‘Guide to Greener Electronics (2013)’ by Greenpeace International, etc.) was chosen as an indicator of companies already leading in this area.

In this study, content analysis of non-financial company report was adapted for three reasons. First of all, in the realm of CSR management research, content analysis of CSR related reports can offer more valuable and accurate information, which cannot be obtained from traditional quantitative methods (Ullmann 1985; Gephart 1991). Secondly, in the field of management research in which access to key informants is often a serious issue, content analysis provides an essential means for obtaining strategic information at the corporate level. As such, content analysis of CSR reports enables the researcher to capture a view of board members toward CSR as CSR reports usually contain corporate level aims and objectives written by the CEO, which influence the organisational decision making processes for CSR (Morris 1994). Lastly, CSR reporting aims at communication with various stakeholders, which tends to more straightforward, obvious, and simple rather than subtle and intricate (Denscombe 2007). Thus, CSR reports are valuable resources for investigating the current status of their CSR management and its interface with design.

Therefore, in this study, the content analysis was carried. This involved analyzing the content and the range of documentary evidence that was devoted to CSR activities, broad areas of action for CSR were identified. Therefore, we accepted a wide range of reporting formats dealing with CSR issues in the alternative formats rather than pursuing one ‘CSR Report’ per se, unless the company actually publishes a CSR report. The reporting style examined here is shown in Table 1.

The two different 'CSR-Design Matrices' were generated by synthesising the major issues of CSR reporting in the service-oriented and the product-oriented companies (please refer to Appendices 1 and 2 as the original data set). From an analysis against the service-oriented 'CSR-Design matrix', it is revealed that among sixty-eight specific CSR policies identified here, the assessment items marked as ‘no influence’ number only sixteen (see Table 5). Thus, it is, assumed that the rest of the CSR polices (fifty-two items) have currently or potentially strong connection with design. Moreover, the product-oriented ‘CSR-Design matrix’ showed a higher involvement level between design and CSR policies relative to the service -oriented matrix. This is evidenced by the fact that the total number of CSR items assessed in the matrix represents eighty-four specific policies, and only seven items have no connection with design function in organisational decision making process (see Table 4). This implies that almost ninety percent of CSR practices in electronics require input from design and/or 'thinking through design' as the form of process. Thus, what is crucial here is that irrespective of industrial context the number of CSR practices requiring design involvement in making decision outweighs those of the don't. Notably, perceiving design as an integrative thinking process, so termed ‘thinking through design’, has had much more profound impact on the way business itself is being conducted, driving organisational innovation (Cooper et al., 2009). This also implies that thinking through design for developing and implementing CSR policies has great potential not only to address current issues in CSR management, but also harness future scenarios and viable solutions for socially beneficial business practices. Indeed, within the radical dimension of innovation, thinking through design can help to find a new direction for the way in which products and services are produced and consumed (Bhamra et al., 2013).

In addition, one of the interesting findings from the analysis of different industries is that the largest amount of design activities engaged in CSR practices of the retailer industry is indicated for ‘CSR informed communication strategies’, whereas those of electronics are realised by ‘socially responsible products and services’ (see Table 5). The reason comes from the fact that the primary targets influencing CSR policies differ depending on the offering and the industrial context in which the company is situated. For electronic goods companies, the primary offerings are mainly products and the services potentially associated with them; their CSR policies thus tend to concentrate on the products’ impact on the environment and society. The retail industry is, in contrast, inherently service-oriented, and therefore its primary focus in addressing CSR concerns those services and the facilities in which they are delivered. In terms of the ‘marketplace’ criteria, for example, four electronic goods companies have clearly indicated their responsibilities of providing their customers with socially responsible products and services through innovative industrial design and high-quality user experience. Electronic gadget makers (mobile and digital) particularly emphasize their responsibility of pursuing innovation due to their inherent characteristics where mobile and digital technology is an important driver of social and economic development to make the world a better place. Accordingly, in terms of the ‘community’ criteria of influence, these electronics companies have established their CSR policies with an eye on their products’ impact on the environment and society. For instance, the quantitative data in Apples’ Environmental Responsibility Report 2014, adds validity to their CSR policy. According to their report, over 95 percent of its total emissions come from the greenhouse gas emitted by the production, transport, use, and recycling of products, whereas, its facilities represent less than 5 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, with respect to retail companies, the primary focus of CSR centers on the facilities such as the stores that greatly influence their core business operations but also impact on the environment and local community. In addition, retail companies have addressed their environmental responsibility focusing on proactive communications to raise eco-awareness and to promote an active and healthy lifestyle by providing carbon labeling, product information, and healthy ranges. For instance, Tesco has launched the “UK Greener Living” brand that is aimed at engaging customers by signposting environmentally friendly products in an easy and accessible way (Tesco and Society Report 2014). Retail companies, thus, do not address their CSR issues by focusing on the product like electronics companies; rather they influence on the marketplace through the soially responsible shopping experience and value proposition.

However, the ‘CSR informed communication strategies’ activities in electronics makers also represent a higher involvement level in creating socially responsible solutions as many CSR practices identified here require input from both specialties at the same time. This suggests that design for CSR, like most areas of design practice, is experiencing the shift from designing socially responsible things to creating meaningful human experience in conjunction with CSR informed communication strategy. Traditionally, environmentally friendly design has focused on reducing the level of material consumption and on minimising waste in what has been called eco-design (Bhamra & Lofthouse, 2007). Some, however, claim that current views of “design for environment” cannot fully solve the crisis of environmental sustainability because they focus only on a product’s physical attributes: material construction, energy use, manufacture, transportation, and disposal (Stegall, 2006). In fact, in many electronics companies, radical innovations can only be achieved with business model innovation such as through the development of product service systems (PSS) (Hansen et al., 2009). For example, PSS can contribute to dematerialization of the offerings by replacing a physical object with an alternative means of service whilst reducing materials flow as well as extending product life cycles (Ness, 2009). In this view, the role of designing CSR informed communication strategies will become increasingly important in developing and implementing CSR policies.

While these examples are by no means exhaustive and are intended to only represent eight companies' CSR policies, it certainly identified that a large number of the CSR policies are directly and indirectly and/or currently and potentially related to design. The forms of involvement are varied, from designed outcomes of object and services to the design of business and organisational process, depending on the specific issues of CSR and industrial context which companies are engaged in. The environmental issues faced by an electronic goods company, for example, will be of a different magnitude compared to those faced by a service-oriented company, varying the focus of design management for CSR. Notably, within the electronic goods industry, investment in design is critical, since it has a profound impact not only on products and services but also on the environment and thus society at large, and therefore is a major contributor to CSR performance.

Another key finding of the analysis is that relatively large number of CSR polices require input from CSR informed communication strategies and/or became involved with or 'thinking through design' as a process of problem-solving through design. The results indicate that contributions of design are significant in not only designing products and service, but also an organisatioal thinking process that can help foster innovation and deal with societal challenges. These findings are consistent with recent study on design thinking, where Brown (2009) focused on design thinking as a human-centred approach and advocated that design thinking involves applying design methods, such as user observations, brainstorming, prototyping, storytelling, and scenario building, in fields beyond traditional design, which are often disregarded by more conventional problem-solving practices. In this approach, the human factor as a means for business transformation is emphasised and it enables unsatisfied human needs to be discovered and the creation of alternative scenarios; as such, the organisations embedding design thinking are more likely to be inspired by people and thus are able to reorient around people to solve important social issues from the angle of individual motivation.

It is clear from the findings that designers have power; they could make conscious decisions that affect shareholders, employees, customers, communities and the environment. Indeed, emphasizing CSR from a holistic design perspective can be a valuable tool for addressing problems and issues faced by organisations and by society; design needs to be therefore perceived to be an integrated thinking process. It should be also noted, however, the fact that designers have great potential to positively influence the corporate social performance, may be not enough itself for designers to actually truing CSR into reality (Lofthouse and Stevenson, 2013). There are still a number of organisational barriers designers have to achieving socially responsible design initiatives within the context of organisation. It is thus important for organisation to define its own context-specific agenda at a corporate level, and develop its own design management framework to manage the process of design at a project level to ensure adherence to the specific CSR practices. Therefore, future research may be directed towards developing new and better strategic design management process that effectively incorporate the altruistic/humanitarian motivations of design professionals with the company’s commitment to the CSR initiatives in a more formalised way.