RMIT University

School of Management
BUSM1094 – Organisational Analysis

Assignment 3 Submission
Problem Solving Case Study and Proposal Report

Lecturer:
Dr. Keith Toh
Tutor:
Dr. Peter Chomley

Student Name:
Shashen Fernando (Student ID: s3655990)

Tutorial Session:
Friday 14:30 – 16:30

Submission Due Date:

07:00PM, 7th of June 2019
Contents
1 Abstract: .......................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Introduction: ................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Problem statement: ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Social isolation of the bank: ............................................................................................ 2
3 Methodology................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 The Neohumanist perspective ................................................................................................ 3
3.2 The radical structuralist .......................................................................................................... 3
3.3 The functionalist perspective.................................................................................................. 3
4 Literature review............................................................................................................................. 3
4.1 Corporate Social responsibility: .............................................................................................. 3
4.2 Criticism of Corporate social responsibility ............................................................................ 4
4.3 Consumer perception on corporate social donations ............................................................ 4
4.4 Ethical framework for corporate social marketing ................................................................. 4
5 Risk and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 5
5.1 Risk .......................................................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 5
6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 5
7. Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 6
7.1 Critical analysis ........................................................................................................................ 6
7.1.1 Corporate Social responsibility model ............................................................................ 6
7.1.2 The criticism of corporate social responsibility .............................................................. 6
7.1.3 The consumer perception on social donations ............................................................... 6
7.1.4 Ethical Framework .......................................................................................................... 7
8. References: ..................................................................................................................................... 7

1|Page
1 Abstract:
The aim of this report is to analyse the impact on the perception of the bank with the recent issues
faced with the banks misconduct. Through the analysis of concepts relating to corporate social
responsibility and organisational perception this paper hopes to analyse the banks new campaign to
improve brand image. Using three of the four paradigms this paper hopes to clarify and analyse the
different perceptions of the stakeholders of this campaign.

2 Introduction:
Corporate social responsibility was defined by Keith Davis as “decisions and actions taken for
reasons at least partially beyond the firms economic or technical interest. (Carroll 1991)” This
concept shows that a company has responsibilities beyond being a profitable brand. In the
contemporary business environment companies are often held accountable for their actions by
government, activist and media. This increased awareness brought by these entities has made the
perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) a very important matter for competitiveness of an
organisation. When a corporation has been caught breaching CSR, it can cause a corporation to be
isolated from its stakeholders.

2.1 Problem statement:

The following issue is of a bank that breached corporate social responsibility due to the pursuing of
economic interest. This bank has had its reputation tarnished due to a variety of scandals which
arose of poor conduct involving many parts of the company. The Bank has been caught charging
deceased customers, withholding payments and breaching anti money laundering laws. To reinvent
their image, the bank has decided to run a campaign in which they would promote the current social
movement known as the #MeToo movement. Through the supporting of non-for-profit
organisations that prevent violence against women the bank hopes to show their commitment to
the movement and hence improve their brand perception. Through the running of this campaign the
bank risk further impeding their progress as it could potentially backfire on them as it the public may
not receive it as well.

Social isolation of the bank:

This campaign could have the potential to backfire as it may not be received well by certain
stakeholders of the bank. This could run the risk of the bank further isolating themselves instead of
improving the solidarity between themselves and their target audience.

3 Methodology
This report will use two different ontological positions in order to study the issue of the perception
of corporate social responsibility. These two ontological perceptions are the Neohumanist and
radical structuralist paradigms found in the paper the Four paradigms of information systems
(Hirschheim & Klein 1989). Through the use of these two paradigms this report will study the issues
of CSR using two different perceptions.

2|Page
3.1 The Neohumanist perspective
The Neohumanist perspective focuses on how individual understand each other and rationalise with
the social world. It uses a subjective viewpoint to improve understanding of an issue where it takes
the perception and interpretations of individuals based on their cultural values and experiences. The
neo humanist perspectives studies the conflicts and barriers which restrict human understanding
tries to emancipate the supressed ideas and interest. This report will use the Neohumanist
perspective when studying the various interpretations of corporate social responsibility through the
studying of literature critical of the issue. In addition, through the literature review on the
perceptions of organisational giving this report will be able to provide an understanding to the client
on the negative perceptions the organisation may face.

3.2 The radical structuralist

The radical structuralist perception is a view of conflict between two players in society. This conflict
is traditionally seen to be between labour and the corporation. This is often seen as a battle
between the different social classes. The radical structuralist acts as a partisan between labour and
management.
This report will study the literature using a radical structuralist perspective. This is as the main issue
between the bank and its stakeholders. Through the radical structuralist paradigm is bank is able to
see the perceptions of the labour partisan and the potential backlash of their campaign.

3.3 The functionalist perspective

The functionalist perspective looks at how different components of social systems interact with each
other. The main goal of the functionalist perspective is to explain how these individual elements
interact. The functionalist system often utilises many models to help with this cause.

This report will briefly utilise a functionalist diagram to help the client understand corporate social
responsibility and its many components.

4 Literature review
4.1 Corporate Social responsibility:
Corporate social responsibility is seen as an obligation of the company which include factors outside
their economic and technical gains. In previous generations corporate social responsibility was
viewed solely in economic terms. This meant companies mainly focused on shareholder money
return and fiscal responsibility. There is a new perception on corporate social responsibility with four
components which include (Economic, Legal, Social and Philanthropic). This can been seen by the
hierarchical pyramid (Fig.1) developed by (Carroll 1991) . This pyramid depicts the different levels of
CSR within an organisation. This shows that’s economic is still the main goal of a corporation as it is
still important that a corporation achieves this to stay in operation. In order to achieve corporate
responsibility companies are said to have to achieve the triple bottom line (Carroll 1991). This means
companies have to maintain Economic, Legal and Social components of CSR. The Philanthropic
component is seen as a bonus for a company and can be used to boost brand image (Carroll 1991).
Companies have been criticised in failing to maintain the triple bottom line as they still mainly focus
on the shareholder and ignore the wider stakeholders which are impacted by the organisation’s
operations. When companies have poor social responsibility management this can have large
negative impacts to the organisation. These impacts can ruin the reputation of the organisation
which can have negative financial impacts to the corporation.

3|Page
4.2 Criticism of Corporate social responsibility
Corporate social responsibility is criticised as it can be used as a scape goat or a buzz word by
organisations as excuses for deceptive behaviour (Carson 2003). This can be seen as Enron increased
their stock prices through creative accounting which was said by the company to be a method to
please shareholders of the organisation. Executives of these companies are said to use this as an
excuse to commit fraudulent behaviour and to deceive the public (Carson 2003). This false initiative
is an act of self interest which is used to ignore the moral obligations of the stakeholders. This
deception through corporate social responsibility can be further seen in companies using corporate
social responsibility initiatives to manage impressions of their corporations other than actually care
about the issue (Coelho, McClure & Spry 2003). Companies are said to use the façade of corporate
social responsibility to highlight the positive outcomes of a corporation and to mask the negative
actions that the corporation does (Coelho, McClure & Spry 2003). This can be use by companies to
draw attention away from the negative.

4.3 Consumer perception on corporate social donations

Normally the perception of philanthropic corporate social responsibility initiatives by companies are
viewed in a positive light. This is often inferred to be altruistic in nature. This can change however for
companies which have poor reputations (Dean 2003). When these companies make philanthropic
contributions, their actions are viewed to be self-interested in nature. According to an attribution
theory consumers often make inferences in order to make sense of their environment. This
characteristic can often backfire on companies with bad publicity (Bae & Cameron 2006). When
these companies make philanthropic efforts it is often viewed to have poor motives and is often
viewed as a knee jerk response by the company (Bae & Cameron 2006).

4.4 Ethical framework for corporate social marketing

Corporate social marketing can be viewed positively and is a good way for companies to show their
CSR. This can also be negative as companies which openly advertise their corporate social initiatives
can be viewed as a having self-interested and ulterior motives (Bae & Cameron 2006). The ethical
framework suggest that corporations do not publicly tout or campaign their social initiatives and let
others talk about them instead. By applying deontological ethics, it is said that an action can only be
virtuous if it is performed without alter motives (van de Ven 2008). One company which applied this
framework was TNT. Which in their corporate social initiative used the policy that silence speaks
louder than words. In their partnership with the united nations world food program. TNT stayed
away from any external marketing or communications. This was used by TNT as a strategic goal to
utilise free publicity to spread the word of the corporation’s actions. This was a successful campaign
as TNT received press exposure and they improved their brand perception according to an
independent corporation ranking system. This perception is paradoxical and wouldn’t make sense to
an organisation which is trying to improve their brand image through a campaign. This would be a
waste of money as corporations would have no guarantee of reaping the rewards. This report
suggest companies should instead focus on campaigns which build a corporate brand. This would
mean companies would have to implement a certain social cause into the brand identity instead of a
one off campaign (van de Ven 2008). This would show the company to be more dedicated and
authentic when it comes to that cause. In order to assist them companies should avoid using
marketing communication instruments to communicate this to the external world. The firm should
restrict it to their social and environmental reporting on their website which would illicit a more
positive response.

4|Page
5 Risk and Recommendations
5.1 Risk
As the bank has made mistakes in maintaining its corporate social responsibility by not addressing
the social and legal aspects of CSR. The use of a philanthropic donation would most likely be viewed
favourably by the public. This donation in the light of bad press for the bank may arouse suspicion on
the motives of the bank when making this donation. This could be viewed by certain stakeholders as
an attempt by the bank to draw negative attention away from their mishaps through a public
donation. Some may also discount the goodwill of the banks actions when making this donation as it
may be viewed to have ulterior motives to donate after bad press.

5.2 Recommendations
The Bank can continue with this campaign and expect a good response from the general public. This
campaign will however not please everyone and the bank would have to accept this fact when
running this campaign. Another approach that does have the potential to have greater benefits is
through the utilisation of a campaign that appears more ethical and with less ulterior motive as
suggested by (van de Ven 2008). Through this campaign the bank would have to contribute to this
cause in a less overt manner. This may run against the whole initial idea of the campaign to improve
the banks image from marketing of this philanthropic act. This would make the bank appear less
insincere and make the campaign seem more genuine. For this approach to work the bank would
have to rely on positive press coverage of this campaign to reap the rewards.

6 Conclusion
With the issue of the social perception of the bank and the campaign to improve it we can see it is
quite a complex scenario. With the different perceptions on Corporations and their responsibilities it
was difficult for the bank to please everyone with the campaign. Through the study of the literature
it is evident that there is perceptions held by the public which mirror the radical structuralist
perspective. The Bank was seen in conflict with certain stakeholders and the campaign could be an
attempt by the bank to deceive the said stakeholders. This campaign could backfire on the bank as it
could further isolate the bank from its target audience due to these negative perceptions held.

5|Page
 7. Appendix

7.1Critical analysis
7.1.1 Corporate Social responsibility model

Figure 1: Corporate social responsibility pyramid

The corporate social responsibility model uses a functional framework to integrate the knowledge of
corporate social responsibility. This shows how the individual elements of corporate social
responsibility interact and are co dependent to form the perception of corporate social responsibility
in an organisation. Through the utilisation of this model the client can better understand the
different components of CSR and its hierarchical nature.

7.1.2 The criticism of corporate social responsibility

Corporate social responsibility initiatives are perceived by certain individuals as tools that can be
used by organisations to gain power over certain stakeholders and to deceive them. This is reflective
of the radical structuralist paradigm which discuss the conflict between the labour and management.
Through the using of the perspective of a labour partisan companies can be seen to use these
deceptions to gain economic power over the stakeholders. Through the use of impression
management companies and using CSR as an excuse companies can deceive the stakeholders and
gain power over them.

7.1.3 The consumer perception on social donations

Through the analysis of the literature it is also evident that companies can use social donations to
maintain their corporate façade. This can be linked back to the radical structuralist paradigm which
addresses the conflict between corporations and stakeholders. Through the use of philanthropic
means the organisations can be seen to mislead the stakeholders through this act.

6|Page
 7.1.4 Ethical Framework
This framework suggests a less overt method for a corporation to change its image. Through this
method the company will seem less deceptive to stakeholders. Through the use of more covert
measures and less indirect advertising methods companies can be perceived to be more genuine
and less immoral.

8. References:
Bae, J & Cameron, GT 2006, 'Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of corporate
giving', Public Relations Review, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 144-150.

Carroll, AB 1991, 'The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of
organizational stakeholders', Business horizons, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 39-48.

Carson, TL 2003, 'Self–Interest and Business Ethics: Some Lessons of the Recent Corporate Scandals',
Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 389-394.

Coelho, PRP, McClure, JE & Spry, JA 2003, 'The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A
Classical Critique', American Journal of Business, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 15-24.

Dean, DH 2003, 'CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF CORPORATE DONATIONS Effects of Company

Reputation for Social Responsibility and Type of Donation', Journal of Advertising, vol. 32, no. 4, pp.
91-102.

Hirschheim, R & Klein, HK 1989, 'Four paradigms of information systems development', Commun.
ACM, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1199-1216.

van de Ven, B 2008, 'An Ethical Framework for the Marketing of Corporate Social Responsibility',
Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 339-352.

7|Page