Corporate social responsibility for poverty alleviation: An integrated research framework

• Date: 01 January 2020
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Author: Rita D. Medina‐Muñoz,Diego R. Medina‐Muñoz
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12248

Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2020;29:3–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer  

|

 3

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

1 | INTRODUCTION

Poverty repr esents an enor mous global cha llenge and an indi s‐

pensable requirement for sustainable development, particularly

in developing coun tries (United Nat ions Division for S ustainable

Development (UNDSD), 2015; World Commission on Environment

& Development , 1987). As a consequence , all actors in so ciety, in‐

cluding firms , are expecte d to show goodwill and a ccept a level of

responsibilit y in alleviatin g poverty (Bar kemeyer & Figge, 2014;

Hahn, 2012; Pater & va n Lierop, 2006; R aimi, Akhuem onkhan, &

Ogunjirin, 2015). I n that respect , the 2030 United Nations Agend a

for Sustaina ble Developmen t places emphasis o n both the engage‐

ment of firms in sol ving sustainable develo pment challenges, one of

which is povert y eradication, a nd on the promotion of ef fective pub‐

lic–private partnerships to achieve this end.

Nowadays, it is assu med that firms co ntribute to reduc ing

poverty by pos itively affec ting economic g rowth (e.g., in ter ms

of employment, i nvestment or ta x income for a commu nity).

Neverthele ss, economic growth has not bee n inclusive and the a b‐

solute number of p oor has increased (Unite d Nations Conference on

Trade and Developme nt (UNCTAD), 2014). As a result, ther e is grow‐

ing debate over the ro le of firms in povert y reduction, in par ticular of

multinationa ls operating in less develope d countries (e.g., Banerjee,

2018; Barkemeyer, 2009; B lowfield & Fr ynas, 2005; Ide mudia &

Osayande, 2016). Cons equently, there is a ne ed for furth er evi‐

dence concernin g corporate soc ial contributio n to poverty all evia‐

tion. Moreover, the com plexity of mea suring a firm's cont ribution

suggests th e need to identif y relevant rese arch methods (M edina‐

Muñoz, Medina‐M uñoz, & Gutiérre z‐Pérez, 2016; Wood, 2010). In

this context, t he term “corporate social re sponsibility” (CS R) is often

adopted to ackno wledge the non‐e conomic dimensi on of business

activity (B lowfield & Fr ynas, 2005, p. 5 03): “companies have a re‐

sponsibilit y for their impact on soci ety and the natural env ironment,

sometimes beyond legal compliance and the liability of individuals”.

Received:11Febru ary2018 

|

  Revised:28Augu st2019 

|

  Accepted:17Octo ber2019

DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12248

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Corporate social responsibility for poverty alleviation: An

integrated research framework

Rita D. Medina‐Muñoz | Diego R. Medina‐Muñoz

Department of Economics and

Management , University of La s Palmas de

Gran Canar ia, Las Palmas de G ran Canaria,

Spain

Correspondence

Diego R. Medi na‐Muñoz, Univers ity of

Las Palmas de G ran Canaria, Edi ficio de

Empresaria les, Módulo C‐3.0 4, 35017 Las

Palmas de Gra n Canaria, Islas C anarias,

Spain.

Email: dmedina@dede.ulpgc.es

Abstract

There is a growing deman d by United Nations developm ent agencies and govern‐

ments for a higher eng agement of firms in sustainable developm ent goals, including

that of eradicating p overty. Neverthe less, the social issu e of poverty has not tr adi‐

tionally been covered by f irms’ corporate social responsibili ty (CSR) initiatives. In ad‐

dition, there is a nee d to integrate theories in order to bet ter explain pro‐poor CSR in

developing countries . Relying on a review of both conceptual and emp irical research

articles on C SR for poverty all eviation, this stud y contributes to the C SR research

agenda by proposing an inte grated research framework for assessin g and explaining

a firm's contribution to p overty alleviation. Besides disc ussing the existing evidence,

the following issues ar e critically analysed with the gene ral purpose of obtaining the

framework and sug gesting avenues for fu ture research: the ass essment of a firm's

contribution to pover ty alleviation, t ypes of pro‐poor C SR initiatives that cou ld be

adopted by firms, an d the factors infl uencing a firm's contrib ution. The frame work,

which intends to be usefu l for future research , can also assist the United Nations to

increase the firm s’ contribution to its a lleviating povert y sustainable deve lopment

goal.

4 

|

     MEDINA‐MUÑOZ AND MEDINA‐MU ÑOZ

However, the social issue of p overty allev iation has not bee n

adequately cover ed by firms’ CSR in itiatives and sus tainable man ‐

agement prac tices (Barkemeye r, 2009; Barkemeyer & Fi gge, 2014;

Hahn, 2012; Lobel , 2013). As regards th e CSR for povert y as a re‐

search topic, t here is a need to integrate t heoretical appr oaches with

the purpose of be tter explaini ng CSR in develop ing countries an d

to generate further empirical evidence (Barkemeyer, 2009, 2011;

Frynas & Yamahaki, 2016; Ja mali & Carroll , 2017). Considering t he

contribution s to the special issu e “Capturing a dvances in CSR : de‐

veloped versus d eveloping pers pectives”, which wa s published in

the journal “B usiness Ethics: A Europea n Review”, Jamali and Carroll

(2017) highlighted dif ferences in th e application of C SR across

developed and d eveloping countr ies in terms, for in stance, of dif‐

ferent perceptions of stakeholders (Griffin, 2017), “win‐win” inter‐

pretations of C SR (Voltan, Hervieux, & Mi lls, 2017) and of exter nal

factors infl uencing a firm's CSR (Vashch enko, 2017). More recently,

Renouard and Ez van (2018) argued that firms have to assu me their

social responsibility towards human development and sustainable

development cha llenges (e.g., pove rty eradi cation) even if it limi ts

their economic performance. Accordingly, since poverty alleviation

is a pressing socia l need that affe cts developi ng countries and t he

most vulnera ble members of the communit y, firms are expecte d to

adopt pro‐poo r CSR initiatives. Mor eover, the application of CSR f or

poverty all eviation, as compared with C SR for other sustainabl e de‐

velopment chall enges, might show some pecul iarities (Griffin, 2017;

Renouard & Ezv an, 2018).

The main contrib ution of this paper to the CSR re search agenda

is an integrated re search framewo rk for assessing a nd explaining a

firm's contribu tion to povert y alleviation. Bu ilding on a review of

both conceptual a nd empirical research ar ticles on CSR for povert y

alleviation, t he framework inte nds to be useful for f acing the ave‐

nues that need to b e urgently researched in th e emerging academic

literature on th e role of the private s ector in reduc ing poverty a nd

for assisting th e United Nations in achieving it s poverty eradicati on

goal. In order to obt ain such a framework and sugges t avenues for

future resear ch, the followin g issues will be consi dered: (a) the as‐

sessment of a fir m's contribution to poverty al leviation; (b) types of

pro‐poor CSR i nitiatives (i.e., CSR initiati ves for poverty alleviation)

that could be adop ted by firms and (c) the fac tors influencing a fir m's

contribution as the independent variables in the proposed model.

Accordingly, the fir st specific purp ose of this study is to integr ate

conceptual and empirical research regarding the measurement of

corporate soci al performa nce (CSP) in gener al and, in part icular, of

pro‐poor CSP, as the dep endent variable in the mo del. As conceived

by Wood (1991, 2010), the term “CSP ” refers to the CS R impacts

and outcomes for s ociety, stakeho lders and the f irm itself. In line

with that defin ition, “pro‐poo r CSP” can be defined as the C SR im‐

pacts and ou tcomes for the poo r. In so doing, besides c onsidering

the works of Wood, th e different approaches to t he measuring of a

firm's contribu tion to poverty alleviat ion that have been adopted by

empirical studies will be identified and critically compared. Empirical

evidence concer ning the contributio n of firms in different ge ograph‐

ical and busine ss contexts will als o be discussed. The sec ond specific

purpose is to work o ut an integrated list of pro‐poor C SR initiatives

that have been anal ysed by empirical st udies. The list coul d be useful

for assisting not o nly firms to increase th eir contribution to redu cing

poverty, but also r esearchers in terested in devel oping a validated

measurement sc ale for pro‐poor CSP. A final specific p urpose is to

integrate the dif ferent fact ors suggested b y both conceptual a nd

empirical studies when explaining the business role in poverty allevi‐

ation (i.e., the in dependent variables in t he model). As concluded by

Frynas and Yamahak i (2016), more research is needed o n integrating

theories rela ted to external and internal dri vers of CSR. Along with

general fac tors suggeste d by major CSR the oretical fra meworks

such as the “win‐wi n”, stakeholder and legitimat ion approaches, this

study will also h ighlight other speci fic factors that have b een pointed

out by conceptual a nd empirical studies .

2 | CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO TH E

ROLE OF CSR IN POVERTY ALLE VIATION

The purpose of th is section is not to r eview the vast lite rature on

CSR and relate d terms (e.g., CSP, corpor ate citizenship, cor porate

social respons iveness, corp orate social comm itment) per se, b ut to

review the elements within the following CSR approaches that spe‐

cifically ad dress poverty allev iation in the context of CS R: CSP, win–

win business case CSR, stakeholder perspective, institutional theory

and the legitim acy perspecti ve on CSR. As such, t he literature on the

classical econ omic approach to C SR (e.g., Arnold & Valentin, 2013;

Friedman, 1962) for insta nce, or that on the “ba se/bottom of the

pyramid” (BoP) (e. g., Kolk, Rivera‐Sa ntos, & Rufin, 2014; Prah alad,

2004; Prah alad & Hammond, 2 002; Prahala d & Hart, 20 02) will

not be considered . In order to achieve t he purpose of elab orating

an integrated res earch framewo rk for the contrib ution of firms to

poverty all eviation, the dis cussion of conceptu al studies will f ocus

on two issues of th e framework: (a) the assessment of a f irm's con‐

tribution to pove rty alleviation as t he dependent variabl e and (b) the

factors influencing it as the independent variables.

2.1 | Ass essment of a firm's contribution to poverty

alleviation

CSP and outcom e‐oriented rese arch can help un derstand a f irm's

impact on soci ety, including it s contribution to p overty allev iation

(Griffin, 2 017; Wood, 2010). Wood (1991, 2010) placed emphasis

on the need to develop measurement models to assess the impact

of a firm's CSR init iatives on other s, that is, stake holders and so ci‐

ety, rather than on t he firm itse lf. For the general pu rpose of this

study, the CSP for t he poor is of interes t as part of socie ty and a

firm's stakeho lders, that is, those who af fect or are affected by the

achievement of the f irm's objecti ves, such as employe es, custom‐

ers, suppliers, community and the natural environment (Clarkson,

1995; Freeman, 1984). As argue d by Wood (2010), CSP and, th us,

CSP for the poo r are controversial , ambiguous and d ifficult to re ‐

search. Never theless, th ere is a need to make prog ress concernin g