See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/23648940

Combining faith and CSR: A paradigm of corporate sustainability

Article in International Journal of Social Economics · May 2008

DOI: 10.1108/03068290810873429 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS
63 7,418

1 author:

Loi Teck Hui

Loi & Mokhtar (Chartered Accountants) & Loi & Mokhtar Consulting
29 PUBLICATIONS 144 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Loi Teck Hui on 18 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0306-8293.htm

Combining faith
Combining faith and CSR: and CSR
a paradigm of corporate
sustainability
449
Loi Teck Hui
Bintulu, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – Engaging corporate social responsibility (CSR) is essential to attain corporate
sustainability. This paper aims to take the CSR from the viewpoints of a believing system,
Christianity in an attempt to bridge a gap in the existing literature.
Design/methodology/approach – Through related literature reviews, research questions asked
and grounding in the Christians’ sacred text, the author seek to explore the Christians’ social
responsibilities and their relatedness to the CSR.
Findings – This paper highlights the interlocking principles – honoring God, one’s neighbor, God’s
creation, great commissions and eternality concept – that shape the Christians’ fundamental
approaches toward their social responsibilities. These collective faith driven principles would redefine
the existing CSR conceptions in a refined form that the author call a faith-based CSR.
Practical implications – The paper discusses the applications of the faith-based CSR in the areas of
corporate philanthropy, environmental preservation and social reporting. The faith-based CSR is
inherently beneficial to the firms and their stakeholders. It refines the organizational paradigms on the
business competition, and uncovers a corporate sustainability paradigm otherwise hidden to
managers and scholars.
Originality/value – The Christians have significant presence in both developed and emerging
nations. Their worldviews on the social responsibility, consequently, would have influenced the CSR
practices of firms. Given the scant attentions paid to explore the intersection between a believing
system and the business ethics, this paper can make a unique contribution to the area of CSR literature.
Keywords Christianity, Corporate social responsibility, Competitive advantage
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
A firm is an open system, whereby its internal and external variables are constantly
interacting with each other in a dynamic way. The interactions are shaping its
organizational behaviors, outcomes and core approaches to the corporate social
responsibility (CSR). The recent corporate governance failures at Pramalat, Enron,
WorldCom and other entities indicate that the executives must now pay even more
attention to assessing the likelihood of organizational sustainability from a strategic
action. Compliance with the conventional accounting rules is simply insufficient. Firms
need to do more to recover the confidence of different stakeholder groups. Not surprisingly,
the strategic issues of CSR have received considerable academic and managerial attention
in different contexts such as firm performance (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; Zairi and International Journal of Social
Peters, 2002), law (Vallée, 2005) and business ethics (Robertson and Crittenden, 2004). Economics
Vol. 35 No. 6, 2008
pp. 449-465
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The author is thankful to the reviewers who provided useful comments for improvement on an 0306-8293
earlier version of this paper. DOI 10.1108/03068290810873429
IJSE Regulators have also taken some regulative interventions, for examples, the introduction
35,6 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the commission of UK Higgs Report, for corporate reforms in
order to regain the eroded trusts in the institutions of modern capitalism. Despite of these
encouraging developments, the dominant consensus on what constitutes a firm’s CSR in
the diverse corporate world is far from conclusive. There are still difficult moral issues
separating people with different religious adherences in the world geopolitical landscape of
450 the twenty-first century. And, the acts of strategizing with values that underlie the CSR
principles are different from having knowledge of them. This calls for a novel perspective
that grounds the existing CSR literature on faith systems to uncover some hidden views,
which might be seminal, in explaining corporate sustainability as there is sparse literature
written on the area.
This paper seeks to explore the Christian perspectives and then integrate them with
the roles of CSR in explaining corporate sustainability. It has the following organization.
Firstly, we carry out some related literature search on the CSR conceptions, corporate
sustainability and Christian spirituality at workplace to develop the theoretical base of
this paper. We also ask five corresponding CSR research questions. Then, we develop
five interlocking principles of the Christian social responsibility that have potential
influences on the CSR of modern business enterprises. The principles are the platforms
that we use in the subsequent conceptualization of a faith-based CSR. These two later
sections attempt to address collectively the five research questions asked. We discuss
the utility and value-creating capability of the proposed faith-based CSR in handling
some major CSR issues along with other implications of our works at the end. As the
world of Christian and business are tightly knit, this paper may have developed unique
perspectives from a believing system that can contribute to the areas of CSR.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1 CSR conceptions
Firms, embedded in diverse economic, cultural and political systems around the world,
have different operating and governance standards. What constitutes the dominant
strategic consensus on the CSR domains is still an ongoing debate. In fact, business
ethics was more of theologians’ concerns rather than the business organizations in the
USA prior to the 1960s. They discussed issues on the morality of capitalism, fair
wages, etc. The Protestant work ethic, the essence of a business organization’s social
responsibility, taught people to work hard and be successful (Lantos, 2001). Later, the
works of Carroll (1979, 2000) propose a four-part definition of CSR suggesting that
the firms have economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities to fulfill to be
good corporate citizens. To perform in a socially responsible way, Freeman (1984)
states that the firms need to act in accordance with moral, legal and social concerns
represented by stakeholders. The CSR can also be seen as a firm’s strategic decision,
whereby it undertakes an obligation to society, for instance, pay attention to
environmental issues (Ness, 1992). Dahlsrud (2006) in his analyses show that the
existing CSR definitions are largely harmonious. However, he points out that often it is
how CSR is socially constructed in a specific context that causes confusion. To conjure
up the research questions, we argue that democracy in and around the firm without
a clear common moral paradigm would be difficult to resolve the inconsistency of
perspectives on the CSR. Introducing more organizational moral hazard preventive
measures may not change the stakeholders who no longer believe in moral laws. The Combining faith
RQ1 we will inevitably ask, therefore, is: and CSR
RQ1. What are the common standards of CSR shall the firms adopt?
As the Christianity perspectives are the focus in this paper, we ask:
RQ2. Shall the common CSR standards reflect the values of Christianity?
451
Getting agreement on what is socially responsible is not always easy in a pluralistic
society. There is also a problem of prioritizing the rights of different stakeholder
groups (Lippke, 1996), though maximizing the wealth of shareholders is a fundamental
concern for managers. Often, the patterns of socially responsible behavior by the firms
are unclear. Some other hidden motivations rather than the philanthropic one may
have actually driven them to engage in the socially responsible actions (Piacentini et al.,
2000). The managers face competing pressure for improved earnings performance
from investors to an extent until they have to sacrifice other corporate social
obligations (Boatright, 1999; Lantos, 2001). In the absence of a mandatory process for
the CSR practices, the socially responsible gestures by some firms may continue to be
seen as hypocritical, and will boost further financial greed (Zairi and Peters, 2002).
Hence, we ask:
RQ3. The commercialism and materialism on nature and creations will trigger
what kinds of concerns over the CSR?

2.2 Spirituality at workplace

The field of business ethics is fast breaking out of mere compliance-based silo as a result
of the emerging of a range of new challenges and opportunities. Addressing the ethics
effectively seems to be compelling for business organizations. There have also been
growing calls for integrating spirituality into workplace and human daily living though
the definitions for the meaning of “spirituality” vary. Krishnakumar and Neck (2002)
highlight some claimed benefits of bringing spirituality to corporate world as, for
instances, there are enhanced individual creativity and sense of personal fulfillment of
employees, and increased honesty and trust within the organization. Cavanagh (1999)
also purports that spirituality enables individuals to gain a more integrated perspective
on their firms, families, neighbors, communities and self. Nevertheless, it shall be
cautiously noted that knitting closer ties between business and religion does not suggest
that only spiritual people can lead exemplary lives. But, it is much more about “who you
are, your being, your character within the organization” (Gunther, 2001). We focus our
discussions below, under this subsection, to the Christian spirituality at workplace.
In the society of nations founded upon the Christianity principle, the biblical
perspectives still hold great influences. The Christianity has long been identified as an
important determinant of economic behavior. The nations that emphasize private property
rights, operate free marketplace with minimal government controls and allow the free flow
of profits are believed to be the today world most prosperous nations (Tawney, 1926;
Weber, 1984; Sherman, 1997). The constitutional wall between church and state is also
crumbling, reflected by the leaders of the nations who often show the public face of their
private beliefs in policy proposals and word choices (Lawrence, 2003). God’s wisdom covers
every aspect of human lives. The book of Atkinson and Field (1995), for instance, provides
detailed antecedences of the Christian ethics and their relevancies to the secular world.
IJSE Johnson (1990) argues that business is part of God’s works in the world. It is also a major
35,6 part of how the Christians conform to God’s will. The Christianity principles deeply inform
and shape the leadership style of those executives who embrace the faith (Delbecq, 1999).
Marr (2001) proposes four principles found in God’s word, The Bible, by which the
Christians could integrate Christianity values in the workplace:
(1) Applying the “Golden Rule” principle. It is necessary for the Christians to make
452 fair and balanced decisions.
(2) Giving is more blessed than receiving. The Christians could create future
business goodwill and repeat business by giving stakeholders good value for
their resources.
(3) “Judging with righteous judgment,”, i.e. instead of jumping to conclusions, the
Christians shall develop the habit of drawing out the facts and asking questions
before making decisions.
(4) Living a fullest life to constantly improve the standards of every aspect of life.

Thus, we state here again the RQ2.

2.3 Corporate sustainability

Maximizing profits has long been held as the fundamental goal of a business
organization. Through distinctive competences, the firm creates and sustains
above-the-average economic performance. As an open system and a social institution,
the firm’s responsibilities extend beyond the wellbeing of its shareholders. The firm has
to be accountable on its corporate actions, to some extent, to different stakeholder groups
including the future generations. As such, achieving corporate sustainability shall
require the firm to pay attention also to other wider corporate performance areas such as
social and environmental implications than simply the economic one (Shrivastava, 1995;
Elkington, 1997; Schaefer, 2004). Mardjono (2005) argues that corporate sustainability
depends on the implementation of good corporate governance principles. These
principles encompass accountability, integrity, efficiency, and transparency. Leung and
Cooper (2003) highlight the needs to recognize and address the religion of materialism in
order to ensure the effectiveness of any corporate governance reforms proposed. Linking
the social and economic aspects together more broadly can be complicated (Rotheroe
et al., 2003). Building a holistic corporate sustainability requires systemic corporate
cultural changes. The changes require investment in related resources and engaging all
stakeholders (Gao and Zhang, 2006). The Global Reporting Initiative (2002) states that
attaining sustainability means balancing the complex relationships between current
economic, environmental and social needs in a manner that does not compromise future
needs. Given the dynamic and multifaceted concept of corporate sustainability, we ask:
RQ4. Shall the firms take steps to realign corporate priorities on what they have
learned about the CSR?
RQ5. Will the firms judge the future now or be sustainable if they take good care of
the present CSR?
In what follows, we seek to address these questions by developing the five interlocking
principles of Christian social responsibility as the section below. The five faith-based values
are then integrated with the related CSR literature to conceptualize a faith-linked CSR.
The positive values of spirituality could be welcome as strategic assets. We restate the five Combining faith
research questions as below: and CSR
.
RQ1. What are the common standards of CSR shall the firms adopt?
.
RQ2. Shall the standards be reflective of the Christianity values?
.
RQ3. The commercialism and materialism on nature and creations will trigger
what kinds of concerns over the CSR? 453
.
RQ4. Shall the firms take steps to realign corporate priorities on what they have
learned about the CSR?
.
RQ5. Will the firms judge the future now or be sustainable if they take good care
of the present CSR?

3. The faith-based views

3.1 Honoring God
The Christians believe God created the heavens and the earth. They understand that
every piece of matter and natural event embody the truth, peace, simplicity and might of
the Creator. These principles recognize that God is the true Owner of the earth and all
resources thereon. God also created man in His own image. The man reflects the moral
and personal nature of God and is entrusted to subdue the earth[1]. People, therefore, are
God’s stewards. They are never really property owners, but property holders that seek to
honor God[2]. As a steward, the Christians thus have responsibilities to the world that
God created. These responsibilities can take in the forms different context of
involvement in business, politic, economic and societal arenas[3]. God has absolute
sovereignty over the world He created[4]. His moral character does not change. The
moral obligations flowing from His nature are absolute and He is the Source of all
absolute standards of moral decisions[5]. In referring to the RQ1, given the Christians’
underlying responsibilities to the world based on their faith system and the set of moral
standards that their God provides primarily through The Bible, there is a venue to
rethink which is the common CSR standard to consider among the existing ones.

3.2 Honoring neighbors

With the understanding on the need to honor God, the most significant difference between
the worldview of Christians and the beliefs of secular humanism on social responsibility
could be made. What comes of this difference is significant. The Christians shall rightfully
consider the interests of the Owner (God) as well as their own (steward) when they are
occupiers of property that belongs to someone else. The steward’s own interest is
secondary to that of the Owner. Upholding the culture of elevating the affluent, talented
and powerful ones could be dangerous when these individuals and/or corporations lack of
commitment to protect the powerless and safeguarding the global environment. As the
wealth in capitalistic economies increases, we also often observe that the gap between the
rich and the poor widens. Christianity instead asks for genuine servant-hood, the Christ’s
model of humility[6]. The ones that should rightfully be appreciated the most are those
who accept their greatness graciously and maintain humility.
Managing ones’ properties includes the respect and compassion for their
neighbors[7]. Compassion is love in action and not just word. The “Good Samaritan”
story in The Bible ends with a Christ’s command for each Christian to go and do likewise;
extending social responsibility without conditions attached to those with different
IJSE nationality, background and social status, and to even enemies and competitors alike[8].
35,6 Compassion offers help when see someone in need and accepts the consequences of
getting involved. This godly habit reflects what God’s grace has done in the Christians’
life, and also manifests the life of Christ in their mortal flesh. Reflecting the Christian
honoring neighbor paradigm in the CSR common standards suggests that engaging the
CSR requires the consideration beyond the cost and benefit issues. To be socially
454 responsible is an inherent duty of the firms’ existences.

3.3 Honoring creations

The Christians believe that God puts human responsible for developing all the
potentialities. He built into the natural world like the land, forest, oil, river and ocean
that we have now. God is good to all; He has compassion on all He has made. As the
Christians recognize that they are given the privilege of being stewards of God’s
creation, they have the responsibility to care for it, guard its fruitfulness and manage it
in a manner that glorifies Him. In other words, they are aware of the influence they
have on the all-natural and material sources of life. Regardless of the economic
circumstances they live, the Christians need to be precautious over the continuous
fruitfulness of the sources of life. A steward is the one whom his master has left in
charge. The Christian ultimately is answerable to God the faithfulness for their
stewardship of His creation to Him[9]. The biblical stewardship principle extends the
responsibility of corporate economic resource caretakers to encompass the wider
society’s interests. A business organization simply does not exist in isolation from
the society. Non-economic performance dimensions of the firm cannot be sacrificed to
cater merely for achieving some economic and commercial goals (see RQ3). The said
caretakers would need to hold property in trust to them for the benefit of wider society
on top of the firms.

3.4 Honoring commissions

The attributes of God’s Lordship refer to His sovereignty over the world He has
made and of the affairs of human beings. Every believer in Him is a member of His
Kingdom and bows to His authority as King. The Christians need to live in obedience to
Him[10]. There are two great commissions God has put on His believes. Firstly, the
Christians are required to love Him with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind. They
also need to love their neighbors as themselves. Whoever does not love does not know
God, because God is love as Christ is the atoning sacrifice for human’s sins. Love is the
central attribute of God. The importance of practice loving one another is that it reveals
God’s presents in the Christians’ life and God’s love is made complete in them[11]. This
indicates love is powerful and perhaps the basic human need. The second commission is
that all Christian is required to go and make disciples of all nations in the name of
God[12]. They cannot make others as disciples unless they are a disciple themselves and
be the “salt and light” of, and a good testimony to the world. “A city on a hill cannot
be hidden”[13]. In the same way, the believers will honor God with their good deeds and
words so that the world may benefit by their distinctiveness from the world. The two
great commissions reinforce that the Christians have an obligation to make their choices
with compassionate concern for others. This shall call for rethinking of the conventional
CSR wisdoms. Johnson (1990) argues that a crucial calling of the Christians is
that they need to live in communities and use their talents to the fullest extent.
This even applies in organizational settings to realize the wholeness of the others’ lives Combining faith
and morality undertakings. and CSR
3.5 Everlasting principle
God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God uses the Greek alphabets “Alpha” and
“Omega” to describe His deity. God, the Alpha, had no beginning. He existed before time,
before the creation of the universe. As the first cause of all that exists, He cannot be 455
limited by the word Alpha. And as the Omega, He is not the “end.” He will continue to
exist into the everlasting, never-ending future. God did certain events before time began
and He who created all the worlds that would include space, and thus time. If a being is
not transcendent of its creation, it cannot create it, for it would be a literal and illogical
creation from itself. God is eternal and everlasting. He has always existed through all of
time and always will[14]. He knows what our future holds and is in total control of what
happens in nature, in history, and in the lives of individual persons (Pailin, 1996). The
Christians are expected to stand steadfast and always give themselves, as a steward,
fully in serving their God, including their social responsibility. The biblical moral
absolute requirements on them are timeless. The Christians know that their labor is not
in vain in God as God promises there will be fruit even though they may not see the
results they wanted[15]. They simply need to be true to the calling of God. God is the
author and finisher of their faiths. They know Christ is the only complete picture about
what will happen in future[16]. The Christian abiding social responsibility absolutism
told in The Bible is consistent with God’s everlasting deity. A socially responsible act
now will have spin-off effects on the future endeavors.
In summary, the Christians are interacting with wider political and societal
influences. As discussed above, there are several thrusts that govern their daily
socialization processes and responsibilities toward others. They acknowledge God’s
sovereignty as the creator of the heavens and the earth. God cares and compassionates
for the entire creation. The Christians demonstrate that care, which underscores their
underlying social responsibility that is not one-off but timeless exercise, to their
neighbor and other creation with no favoritism. This is consistent with the great
commissions given by their everlasting God. We conceptualize these interlocking
principles as per Figure 1 that we collectively call as the faith-based values. We
integrate these faith-oriented values with existing CSR paradigms in the section below
that conceptualizes a faith-based CSR through which we also seek to address the
five strategic questions asked earlier. The faith-based CSR consists of a bundle of five
faith-linked CSR typologies.

4. The faith-based driven CSR

4.1 Value-driven CSR
The values firms hold affect the types of activities they find appealing and their
motivation toward specific business outcomes. When the firms value corporate reputation
highly and where their generous corporate philanthropies lead to better international
recognition, they are likely to be highly motivated toward undertaking strategic CSR
initiatives. Put it differently, values determine organizational morality and performance
characteristics. Recent high-profile corporate crashes suggest that reputation determines
business impacts either positively or negatively. The firms should not be single-mindedly
in pursuing preferred business outcomes without paying proper regard to the corporate
IJSE
35,6
Honoring
God

Honoring
Neighbors Value Responsible
456

Value Creation
Competitive Intent
Intent
Responsible
Honoring Result Competitive Advantage
Creations
Stakeholder Responsible
Competitive Outcome
Honoring Cultural
Commissions

Everlasting
Principle

The Interlocking Faith- The Bundled Faith-based

Corporate Sustainability
Figure 1. based Values CSR
Combining faith and CSR

morality and legitimacy issues. The outcomes brought about by the firms’ strategic
actions could redefine their CSR obligations. There is also greater awareness now that
repressing labor practices, rewarding executives’ failures, selling substandard products
and compromising morality in the pursuit of profits could be discovered even at some
high-profile corporations.
A value-driven CSR would practically require the firms to embed their perceived
morality values in both before- and after-profit strategic decision makings. “A good name is
more desirable than great riches.” Both realms of profit and integrity beckon managers.
Corporate moral hazard and greed occur when the corporate value systems consider loosely
their responsibility toward others. If any corporate debacles such as WorldCom/MCI and
Arthur Andersen could have taught us anything – surely, it is that integrity affects profit.
This is in line with the five interlocking faith-based views that suggest the CSR is not an
ad hoc public relation act and an initiative could be loosely imitated in relation to others’.
But, it is an ongoing exercise and a multidimensional value system that depicts
organizational ethical philosophies and conducts. Thus, an understanding of the firms’ core
value systems is important to identify their strategies toward the CSR. In responding to the
RQ1, the firms’ ability to ascertain and create an appropriate value-driven CSR in their
organizing and strategizing actions that aligns closely with their corporate missions is
essential in competition and attaining sustainability.

4.2 Intent-driven CSR

Integrating values with the CSR requires firms to identify and reflect the interests they
intend to serve. Hamel and Prahalad (1989) suggest that an effectively established
strategic intent, shared by all levels of a firm can cause people to perform in a way
that unseats the best or remain the best. This strategic intent also incorporates
stakeholders’ interests intimately tied to the organizational self-interest. It defines
strategic missions that highlight what a firm values. The strategic missions guide the Combining faith
firms’ conducts in pursuing their organizational goals, a mechanism that translates the and CSR
strategic intent into action. Strategic intent as such aligns the actions and beliefs of
everyone in the organization toward a challenging goal (Smith, 1994). The Christians’
social responsibility intents reflect their faith’s value systems. It is mission imperative
that the Christians shall fulfill the two great commissions; loving one another and
making disciples of all nations. They have an obligation to make choices with 457
compassionate concern for others as they acknowledge the sovereignty of God. This
strongly suggests that pursuing relentlessly business profits or leveraging resources to
reach goals without conscience is dangerous. In responding to the RQ2, an intent-driven
CSR entails business enterprises to balance their strategic intents with the action-driven
missions in such a way that the intents do not violate the enterprises’ conscience.

4.3 Result-driven CSR

Both prior- and post-firm economic performances are essential for a result-driven CSR.
The extent of commercialism and the demand for quick profits shall not conflict the
firms’ inherent sustainable development obligations. The conflicts, if any, shall be
managed accordingly. Classical economic theory argues that managers are primarily
responsible for maximizing economic performance in a lawful manner. Organizations in
general favor corporate profitability excess that of social responsibility as they need to
maximize returns based on limited resources. The CSR may be viewed as a cost and thus
sidelined if acceptable levels of the financial performance are not evidenced. Meantime,
the stakeholders’ expectations have been climbing and increasingly multifaceted. CSR
engagements based merely on the financial performance aspect are no longer adequate.
In responding to the RQ3, a result-driven CSR integrates stakeholders into the firms’
role in corporate wealth creation as part of a wider corporate community. The
stakeholders could share their views or work proactively with management to
improve their own benefits while enhancing the economic performance. The corporate
community improves communication and helps building trust between the firms and
their stakeholders. For instance, the trusting relationship between the managers
and suppliers or customers clamps down unnecessary negotiation costs. The firms could
identify and prioritize among the CSR programs to fit better the stakeholders’ needs
while achieving the greatest positive impacts with the available resources. This reduces
costly conflicts, heightens innovation capabilities and speeds up organizational
decision-makings. Pursuing the result-driven, CSR consequently improve the match
between the firms’ actual competencies and stakeholders’ expectations. The Christianity
stewardship principle suggests that the firms shall more broadly serve the society as
their decisions have time effects on the different parts of it. To proceed with both result-
and stakeholder-driven CSR, the stewardship of corporate resources somehow shall be
melded with a view of stewardship of the societies’ resources. This makes sense as
management literature also finds that the public nowadays demands that the firms
make social issues as a part of their strategies (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001).

4.4 Stakeholder-driven CSR

The CSR is about coalition or stakeholder management. In responding to the RQ4,
a stakeholder-driven CSR realigns priorities and balances different stakeholder
groups’ interests. Stakeholder theory, on the other hand, suggests that managers, while
IJSE mainly responsible to investors, also have a direct responsibility to promote
35,6 the interests of suppliers, employees, authorities and customers, to name a few, who
have both implicit and explicit claims on the organizational resources (Freeman, 1984;
Friedman and Miles, 2002). The more explicit claims indicate the higher costs for the
firms involved in unethical business practices. Ozone destruction and global warming
as a result of excessive harmful gas emissions might have broader effects than the
458 direct forced change within the organization as the boundaries between the firms and
their external environment are eroding. The firms might be required to install
internally new control equipments and processes to tackle the gas emissions problem.
They suffer reduced profits consequently and their socially irresponsible behavior may
spillover to other areas. This jeopardizes their global corporate images. Authorities
concerned might regulate the firms’ global operations while trade unions and pressure
groups strive to make their claims on the firms more explicit and legitimate. The claims
can be in the forms of product boycotts, worker strikes and lawsuits. Thus, the firms
with a high-stakeholder-driven CSR may find that they face both fewer yet lower-cost
explicit claims than those taking a less enlightened stance on the stakeholder mapping.

4.5 Cultural-driven CSR

The CSR is a way of life and crucial corporate know-how. Managers’ perceptions of the
CSR are colored by their upbringing, experience and education. The existence of culture
and its developments and changes within an organization affect the CSR. Conventional
wisdoms suggest that a strong, clear and coherent organizational culture, widely shared
at all levels within organizations, is a key factor in determining organizational
effectiveness (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Klein et al., 1995). The strongly shared value-,
intent-, result- and stakeholder-driven CSR, hence can be tremendous driving forces that
influence every aspect of the firms’ operations. The Christians can by their own
examples promote their timeless social responsibility and morality in the culture that
they embed. They demonstrate social responsibility values in such a way that not
against but seeks the highest good of others. The problem of incorrect CSR is that it often
leads to inappropriate behavior; it becomes merely a public relation exercise or window
dressing tool that hides unethical corporate activities. Strategic management and
decision-making processes shall therefore integrate mission statements that highlight
what a firm values, including the CSR. This is because the mission statements guide the
firm’s conducts in the pursuit of profits. In responding to the RQ5, the cultural-driven
CSR guides and supports preferred organizational strategies. It addresses the ethical
components of corporate and business levels strategies as well as unlearns deep-rooted
destructive culture. As it becomes part of the organizational core capabilities, the firms’
highest level of decision-makings and external relationships shall reflect consistently
their continuous commitment to the CSR. This is a sound corporate futurology. The best
way to manage and predict the future CSR obligations is to live up properly the present
CSR commitments.

5. Discussions and implications

We could reasonably concur that it will be challenging if our present generation
refuses to consider the CSR in their resource allocations and strategizing initiatives.
A consequence of this is that there would be hardly decent CSR practices left for
future generation. The future generation, thus, may not be able to survive in a sea of
changing values if there is no general consensus about what are the common standards Combining faith
of CSR. Morality is not merely a state of mind. Mere listening and understanding would and CSR
not make values become part of managers’ normal life unless they practice the values.
This is a dilemma yet is a real fact. While there is a considerable merit with the
tolerance approach in our quest to understand the CSR deeper, there is a danger with a
mind that is so open until it cannot differentiate truth and error. We offer the following
insights how the faith-based CSR can be approached in real world to handle some 459
major CSR challenges.

5.1 Corporate philanthropy

Corporate philanthropy is seen as having long-term impacts on firms rather than a
short-term public relation builder. Philanthropic activities could range from simple cash
donations to the more complicated or truly strategic ones such as technology transfer
and leveraging the firms’ capabilities in support of charitable causes. There are often
tradeoffs to consider before committing the firms’ resources to the myriad social causes
(Porter and Kramer, 2002; Sasse and Trahan, 2007). Facing with the paradoxes between
the short-term profits pressure and the more demanding CSR, these activities no doubt
have provided some innovative ways to address organizational social obligations and
corporate strategies. However, it remains unclear whether these creative philanthropic
strategies will actually increase the quality of business environment or be the CSR
minefields that entail the firms to bear greater business risks. This suggests that there
must be a healthy balance between giving and receiving. Some forms of mission and
operation screening on the receivers always precede prudent giving programs. Here, the
faith-based CSR challenges the firms’ potential innate selfishness. Receiving and giving
philanthropy both are an art. By receiving, the receivers acknowledge their need for
others. They prepare to let the givers to become part of them in certain areas. Often, it is
only in the eyes of the receivers that the givers discover their worth. Giving diffidently
and/or with hidden destructive agendas does not make the giving firms a philanthropist.
Receiving without humility likewise would not make the receivers become a gracious
receiver. The strategic use of philanthropy appreciates what really matters in both the
acts of giving and receiving.

5.2 Environmental preservation

The CSR evolves in line with a firm’s responses to environmental concerns. The
twenty-first century business environment is characterized by increased
environmental regulations. The proposition that appropriate environmental
disclosures lead to the favorable economic performance is increasing though there is
no universal consensus yet on what should be the forms and substances of such
disclosures. The firms are more likely to disclose their CSR expenditures when they
attain favorable economic performance. However, the time would come when they will
feel the pressure from stakeholders as to the need for environmental reporting. Not all
business activities have significant environmental impacts. But, all the firms could
take measures to benefit the environments whether through energy efficiency schemes,
waste reduction strategies or improving the design of their products. The faith-based
CSR realizes that being environmentally proactive could one day prove less costly than
not. In the long run, the firms that safeguard the fruitfulness of environments may
become more competitive and enjoy better relationship with the surrounding
IJSE environment-conscious communities. They would step forward engaging in the
35,6 environmental reporting voluntarily.

5.3 Social reporting

The faith-based CSR requires the firms to balance their social power and social
responsibility. The social power, for instances, are job providing and tax paying
460 capabilities of the firms. The social reporting is more than just a philanthropic act.
It indicates the firms’ accountability as a social institution for the outcomes relating to
their areas of involvement within the society. The CSR is part and parcel of the
organizational social concerns. This implies the society’s perception of the firms’ CSR
influences organizational decision makings. The perception as such is important to
shape business performance. The lack of mandatory statutory requirements,
independent verification and social awareness would not entice socially responsible
firms to find loopholes and produce distorted social reports. Instead, they see the social
reporting as an inherent managerial responsibility to bridge the society’s expectation
gaps on their businesses as the capitalism evolves. They simply have to be truth to
their neighbors. And of course, improvement in managing and reporting of the social
and environmental exposures could have a measurable impact on the firms’ financial
bottom-line via better financial analysts’ ratings, preferred corporate citizens and more
intimate relationship with stakeholders.

5.4 Competition approaches

There is a variety of variables taint the outcome of an organizational decision.
Establishing the causal relationship between the agent that makes the decision and the
corresponding organizational consequence is particularly difficult. Many would
therefore prefer to take the relative rather than the absolute value of honesty. Herein lays
the major morality problem. Pretending to protect ones’ own interests has become a
necessary organizational evil. Managers purport that it is impossible to live with
integrity in the dynamic business landscape with pressing stakeholders’ expectations.
A series of recent corporate failures and regional economic crises trigger debates on
what are the exact causes of organizational failure. Great accomplishments require
discipline. Taking the relative value of honesty might have deepened the pain and
confusion of society. During the dynasty of Omri, the ancient Israel’s King Ahab
(871-852 BC), rich and powerful, got in trouble because he surrounded himself with
advisors who told him the lies he wanted to hear rather than the truth he needed to know.
His corrupted advisors led him to a tragic dead end. Not much is different the collapses of
many modern business corporations from this historical lesson[17]. It is about the truth
and is not so much about executives compensation schemes. The truth is not relative.
Honesty is the cornerstone to morality. Self-absorbed pattern of individuals do only
what is right in their own eyes at the expense of common good. This is puzzling to the
modern scholars and managers. The strategic thinking and its corresponding strategic
actions lead to some forms of competitive advantages through strategy processes.
These competitive advantages bring differing competitive outcomes that affect the
stakeholders. As a social change agent that makes value-creating CSR decisions,
the firms shall reexamine the full consequences of corporate strategies in their search of
corporate sustainability. We envisage three further points as below that collectively
forms a reaction chain of responsibility to assist managers to proceed with this Combining faith
endeavor. and CSR
5.4.1 Responsible competitive intent. The faith-based CSR neutralizes the questions
of priority. Competitive intent shall equalize concern for the stakeholders as well for the
organizations. Corporate strategies, which bring the firms into interaction with others,
shall incorporate appropriate ethics. Ethics is vital in economic systems as it builds
trust with others and earns the public’s goodwill. The trust promotes stakeholders’ 461
cooperation in the exchange of goods or services. It also reduces transaction costs. The
evidences of CSR effectiveness can then be translated into both qualitative and
quantitative outcomes. Managers shall think carefully about the implications of
various courses of actions before making decisions. They ought to have responsible
competitive intent, as they need stakeholders’ cooperation on the potential outcomes of
their strategy agendas if they are to succeed.
5.4.2 Responsible competitive advantage. Being socially responsible does not mean
the firms have to treat themselves as less important than their competitors. They shall
develop innovative work practices, design superior production processes and provide
the best goods or services that they can. Both ethics and competition encourage them
putting forward a new industrial standard that improves quality of life and business
environment within an industry. Responsible competitive advantage does not
monopolize that stifle innovation. Rather it healthily benefits industries’ competition in
the long run by a new standard of quality that motivates other firms to provide even
better goods and services.
5.4.3 Responsible competitive outcome. Incorporating the CSR, only in the
after-profit decision makings may cause the firms to make costly errors. Pressures
from the regulators and stakeholders often require them to provide remedies for
unsatisfactory business outcomes. For instance, the firms’ own problems such as
manufacturing processes that do not conform fully health and safety standards. As a
result, they are asked to give financial compensations to the affected. Misperception of
the CSR is costly when the people change attitudes and regulators revise legislations.
In the long run, the prices of the firms’ goods or services might potentially include the
hidden costs of their present unethical practices that make them less competitive.
Responsible competitive outcome suggests that even the relentless pursuits of better
economic performance would not lead to unduly negligence of the potential CSR costs
that the firms have to pay for their competitive advantages gained every now and then.
Figure 1 shows that while the above three points are collectively moderated by the
faith-oriented CSR; they are still influenced and guided by the five interlocking
faith-based values either directly or indirectly. This is significant in reflecting the
consistency between what the firms value and their value-creating capabilities which
give them competitive advantages. Altering legislation and introducing organizational
corruption controlling measures no doubt are tangible assets that can improve the way
managers practise the CSR. The works of others and internally accumulated
experience could also teach the members of an organization much about why they
behave as they do. But a more crucial consideration here is how the managers look on
the inside, the way their heart and mind is transformed. Revolutionizing the CSR
requires the organizational members to change their hearts and get it right what is the
moral absolute. Our heart is the central of thinking and acting. We often lose influence
on others that comes from purity of mind and body. We give excessively the credit to
IJSE human wisdoms. In fact, we shall begin to recognize that the faith-based CSR is much
35,6 more than the fortunate individuals to assist the less fortunate members of the society.
Christ told a religious inquiring person named Nicodemus: “Unless one is born
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus’s responses to this answer seem
logical but he did not grasp the idea of second or spiritual birth. He asked Christ: “How
can a man be born when he is old?” and “can he enter a second time into his mother’s
462 womb and be born?” Christ explained the difference between being born of the flesh
and of the spirit[18]. In other words, a Christian life begins only when one invites
Christ to live within him/her. A believer experiences an inward change that has been
brought about by the grace of God. It is supernatural and goes beyond logical
reasoning, scientific and humanly scholarship search. Apostle Paul told Galatians,
who were confused with their identity, that only through the salvation of Christ they
are given a new life and become “a new creation.” That is, if one has received Christ as
the Savior, his/her identity is found in Him – not in external things done in the flesh. A
creation cannot transcend the Creator[19]. Also, “the fear of God is the beginning of
knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline,”[20] and practically this is also
the starting point of learning ethics. Bringing the Christianity faith to the CSR domain
is useful for theory building if we could acknowledge and accept that there is “limit”
within us and the search for wisdom from the “unlimited” God is compelling. We have
to go for the “source” of solutions than simply looking solutions within our own
“limited” solutions.

6. Conclusions
Wisdom, guidance and godly character are essential traits to live up the faith-based
CSR. The most important man-made moral laws even at times can and cannot do
certain things. While they can show us what is right, they might not be capable of
making people good. Stated differently, there is a difference between knowing and
keeping the law. Managers often encounter conflicting stands on the CSR when the
organizational internal systems and knowledge management are ambiguous. They
may make wrong crucial CSR decisions or fail to act when necessary as they try to
enforce idealized interpretations of what a firm’s CSR should be. Their decisions have
spin-off effects on the other organizational decisions either at individual, group or
organization level. People cling to their principles for many different reasons. Our
proposed faith-based CSR is inherently beneficial to business organizations though
living up fully the principles that underlie the conception is a continuous process as it
is not always feasible to label what is a perfect firm and CSR practice in this practical
world. Regardless its relationship with the economic performance, the CSR is
inherently seemed as having much more to do with both formation and sustainability
of the firms. It has also been believed that the Christians’ worldviews have led them to
make responsible decisions that have shaped the fabric of economies, cultures, political
landscapes and beliefs (Williams and Houck, 1978; Belanger and Mast, 1999).
Nevertheless, we do think that discussing faiths is value based and sensitive. It often
results in raging disagreements though the Christians make up a significant portion of
the population of the world and developed nations. We are of the opinions that future
research could probably be broadened to include other major faiths in a compare and
contrast mode to examine how their worldviews lead their followers to make critical
CSR decisions.
Notes Combining faith
1. See the New International Version of The Bible and the related biblical verses – Genesis and CSR
1:1-2:3.
2. See Deuteronomy 6:5; Psalms 22:23; Isaiah 42:12; John 17:4 and I Corinthians 10:31.
3. See Genesis 1:28; Deuteronomy 10:1; Ezekiel 18:4; Luke 12:42-48; Romans 12:4-8; Romans
14:11-12 and Ephesians 4:28.
4. See Romans 9:19-21 and B.W. Anderson (1996).
463
5. See Malachi 3:6; James 1:17 and N. Geisler (2004), pp. 22-3.
6. See John 13:1-14:7; Mark 9:35, 10:43 and Philippians 2:6-8 for Christ’s example of
servant-hood.
7. See Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:36-40 and Romans 13:8-10.
8. See Luke 10:30-37.
9. See Matthew 25:14-23 and II Peter 1:11.
10. See Exodus 3:19-20, 4:21, 20:2-3, 34:23; Joshua 3:13; Psalms 93:1, 97:1, 135:5; Isaiah 43:11-12
and Matthew 7:21-29; Butler (1991) edited Holman Bible Dictionary on the topic of “Lord.”
11. See I John 4:7-12.
12. See Matthew 28:19.
13. See Matthew 5:13-16.
14. See Genesis 21:33; Psalm 90; Isaiah 57:15; John 1:1-14, 8:54-59; Colossians 1:13-19; I Timothy
1:17 and Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13; The Parent Company (2003); and RBC Ministries’ (n.d.)
booklet on ten reasons to believe under the topic of An Eternal God.
15. See I Corinthians 15:58.
16. See Hebrews 12:2.
17. See I Kings 16:21-22:40.
18. See John 3:1-9.
19. See the book of Galatians in The Bible.
20. See Proverbs 1:7-8.

References
Anderson, B.W. (1996), “The kingdom, the power, and the glory: the sovereignty of God in
The Bible”, Theology Today, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Atkinson, D.J. and Field, D.H. (Eds) (1995), New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral
Theology, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester.
Belanger, R. and Mast, B. (Eds) (1999), Profile of Success, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Bayonne, NJ.
Boatright, J.R. (1999), Ethics and the Conduct of Business, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Butler, T.C. (Ed.) (1991), “Lord”, Holman Bible Dictionary, available at: www.studylight.org/dic/
hbd/view.cgi?number ¼ T3914
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three dimensional model of corporate performance”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. (2000), “The four faces of corporate citizenship”, in Richardson, J.E. (Ed.), Business
Ethics 00/01, Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, Guilford, pp. 187-91.
IJSE Cavanagh, G.F. (1999), “Spirituality for managers: context and critique”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 186-99.
35,6
Dahlsrud, A. (2006), “How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
definitions”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, published
online in Wiley InterScience.
Delbecq, A.L. (1999), “Christian spirituality and contemporary business leadership”, Journal of
464 Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 345-54.
Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business,
Capstone Publishing, Oxford.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2002), “Developing stakeholder theory”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Gao, S.S. and Zhang, J.J. (2006), “Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate
sustainability”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 722-40.
Geisler, N. (2004), Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI.
Global Reporting Initiative (2002), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Global Reporting
Initiative, Boston, MA.
Gunther, M. (2001), “God & business”, Fortune, Vol. 144 No. 1, pp. 58-80.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), “Strategic intent”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67 No. 3,
pp. 63-76.
Johnson, T.S. (1990), “How the notion of a calling manifests itself in the world of business:
one viewpoint”, America, Vol. 162 No. 5, pp. 117-20.
Klein, A.S., Masi, R.J. and Weidner, C.K. II (1995), “Organization culture, distribution and amount
of control, and perceptions of quality: an empirical study of linkages”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 122-48.
Krishnakumar, S. and Neck, C.P. (2002), “The ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of spirituality in the
workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 153-64.
Lantos, G.P. (2001), “The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 595-632.
Lawrence, J. (2003), “Bush’s agenda walks the church-state line”, USA Today, 29 January.
Leung, P. and Cooper, B.J. (2003), “The Mad Hatter’s corporate tea party”, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 18 Nos 6/7, pp. 505-16.
Lippke, R.L. (1996), “Setting the terms of the business responsibility debate”, in Larmer, R.A.
(Ed.), Ethics in the Workplace: Selected Readings in Business Ethics, West Publishing
Company, St Paul, MN.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2000), “Corporate social responsibility and financial performance:
correlation or misspecification?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 603-9.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), “Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-27.
Mardjono, A. (2005), “A tale of corporate governance: lessons why firms fail”, Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 272-83.
Marr, S. (2001), “Integrating Christian values in the workplace”, Business Proverbs Today,
10 September.
Ness, M.R. (1992), “Corporate social responsibility”, British Food Journal, Vol. 94 No. 7, pp. 38-44.
Pailin, D.A. (1996), “On the significance of the sovereignty of God”, Theology Today, Vol. 53 No. 1, Combining faith
pp. 35-46.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search for Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
and CSR
Piacentini, M., MacFadyen, L. and Eadie, D. (2000), “Corporate social responsibility in food
retailing”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 11,
pp. 459-69.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2002), “The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy”, 465
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 12, pp. 56-68.
RBC Ministries (n.d.), “Ten reasons to believe: in life after death”, available at: www.rbc.org/
bible_study/ten_reasons_to_believe/pages/7330/93/7337.aspx
Robertson, C.J. and Crittenden, W.F. (2004), “Mapping moral philosophies: strategic implications
for multinational firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 385-92.
Rotheroe, N., Keenlyside, K. and Coates, L. (2003), “Local agenda 21: articulating the meaning of
sustainable development at the level of the individual enterprise”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 11, pp. 537-48.
Sasse, C.M. and Trahan, R.T. (2007), “Rethinking the new corporate philanthropy”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 50, pp. 29-38.
Schaefer, A. (2004), “Corporate sustainability – integrating environmental and social concerns?”,
Corporate Social-Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 179-87.
Sherman, A.L. (1997), The Soul of Development: Biblical Christianity and Economic
Transformation in Guatemala, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), “The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 936-60.
Smith, C.F. (1994), “The Merlin factor: leadership and strategic intent”, Business Strategy Review,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 67-84.
Tawney, R.H. (1926), Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, Brace and World, Inc., New York, NY.
The Parent Company (2003), “Attributes of God: God is eternal”, available at: http://
parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog7.htm
Vallée, G. (2005), “What is corporate social responsibility? The case of Canada”, Managerial Law,
Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 20-46.
Weber, M. (1984), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Unwin Paperbacks, London
(trans. T. Parsons).
Williams, O.F. and Houck, J.W. (1978), Full Value: Cases in Christian Business Ethics, Harper &
Row, San Francisco, CA.
Zairi, M. and Peters, J. (2002), “The impact of social responsibility on business performance”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 174-8.

About the author

Loi Teck Hui is a Fellow of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, UK. His works
have been accepted at Accounting Forum, IJOPM, Edward Elgar, Palgrave MacMillan and Web
Journal of Chinese Management Review. He is the recipient of the outstanding paper reviewer
award from the Management Consulting Division of the Academy of Management in 2006 and
2007. Currently, he is also reading a postgraduate theological program with a methodist-based
seminary. Loi Teck Hui can be contacted at: loi.teck.hui@accamail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats