Corporate Social Responsibility Discourse Research Articles

Discovering the deep roots of corporate social responsibility in SMEs

Purpose This article looks at the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Cameroon's dynamic landscape, exploring the motivations driving small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to adopt socially responsible practices. In contrast to the emphasis on CSR in large companies, we highlight the central role played by SMEs as catalysts for sustainable development. Design/Methodology/Approach Using a quantitative methodological approach, this study examines the different factors that influence the adoption of CSR in Cameroonian SMEs. We established a non-probability sample of 124 SMEs based in the following four Cameroonian cities: Douala, Yaounde, Garoua and Ngaoundere. We used binomial logistic regression to analyse the impact of financial resources, institutional environment, company size, sector of activity, managerial ethics and company age on SMEs' commitment to socially responsible practices. Findings and implications Our study highlights the key determinants of commitment to CSR in Cameroonian SMEs. Our results show that financial resources, the institutional environment, the size of the company, the sector of activity, the ethics of the manager and the age of the company appear to be key factors influencing the implementation of a CSR approach. However, the factors studied have different weights of influence in the implementation of this CSR approach. These results prompt a reassessment of CSR implementation strategies and provide valuable pointers for improving the reputation, sustainability and relevance of Cameroonian SMEs in a rapidly changing context. Limitations Although this study makes a significant contribution to the understanding of CSR in Cameroonian SMEs, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The research is specific to the Cameroonian context and the results may not be universally applicable. In addition, the dynamic nature of business environments introduces a temporal component that may impact the generalisability of our results over time. Finally, the absence of a relationship between the nature of the technologies used and the implementation of a CSR approach is counter-intuitive and would merit being tested on larger samples or being the subject of further qualitative research in order to identify other components of the variable.Originality This research fills a crucial gap in the literature by shedding light on CSR in the context of Cameroonian SMEs. The identification of multifaceted determinants offers a unique contribution to the wider CSR discourse, challenging conventional perceptions and providing practical implications for both academics and practitioners.

Plastic Politics of Delay: How Political Corporate Social Responsibility Discourses Produce and Reinforce Inequality in Plastic Waste Governance

Abstract As the global plastics pollution crisis grows in severity and complexity, diverse solutions are being proposed across the public and private sectors. Notably, multinational corporations (MNCs) from the petrochemical and consumer goods sectors have become increasingly involved. From providing recycling infrastructure to directly participating in drafting action plans and policies, MNCs are engaging as political actors in plastics waste governance, influencing discourses and actions globally, a process referred to as political corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this article, I examine Coca-Cola’s World Without Waste initiative as a case study of this process. I evaluate how Coca-Cola frames the problems of plastics waste, their solutions, and the roles that Coca-Cola asserts within this complex, transboundary environmental governance issue. Borrowing from literature on corporate climate delay tactics, I demonstrate how the initiative implements discourses and practices of delayed action, hindering comprehensive governance strategies. Through this analysis, I argue that political CSR actions can exacerbate the global plastics pollution crisis through ineffective and inequitable waste governance approaches that perpetuate uneven plastics pollution burdens.

Bioethics-CSR Divide

Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash ABSTRACT Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were born out of similar concerns, such as the reaction to scandal and the restraint of irresponsible actions by individuals and organizations. However, these fields of knowledge are seldom explored together. This article attempts to explain the motives behind the gap between bioethics and CSR, while arguing that their shared agenda – combined with their contrasting principles and goals – suggests there is potential for fruitful dialogue that enables the actualization of bioethical agendas and provides a direction for CSR in health-related organizations. INTRODUCTION Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) seem to be cut from the same cloth: the concern for human rights and the response to scandal. Both are tools for the governance of organizations, shaping how power flows and decisions are made. They have taken the shape of specialized committees, means of stakeholder inclusion at deliberative forums, compliance programs, and internal processes. It should be surprising, then, that these two fields of study and practice have developed separately, only recently re-approaching one another. There have been displays of this reconnection both in academic and corporate spaces, with bioethics surfacing as part of the discourse of CSR and compliance initiatives. However, this is still a relatively timid effort. Even though the bioethics-CSR divide presents mostly reasonable explanations for this difficult relationship between the disciplines, current proposals suggest there is much to be gained from a stronger relationship between them. This article explores the common history of bioethics and corporate social responsibility and identifies their common features and differences. It then explores the dispute of jurisdictions due to professional and academic “pedigree” and incompatibilities in the ideological and teleological spheres as possible causes for the divide. The discussion turns to paths for improving the reflexivity of both disciplines and, therefore, their openness to mutual contributions. I.     Cut Out of the Same Cloth The earliest record of the word “bioethics” dates back to 1927 as a term that designates one’s ethical responsibility toward not only human beings but other lifeforms as well, such as animals and plants.[1] Based on Kantian ethics, the term was coined as a response to the great prestige science held at its time. It remained largely forgotten until the 1970s, when it resurfaced in the United States[2] as the body of knowledge that can be employed to ensure the responsible pursuit and application of science. The resurgence was prompted by a response to widespread irresponsible attitudes toward science and grounded in a pluralistic perspective of morality.[3] In the second half of the twentieth century, states and the international community assumed the duty to protect human rights, and bioethics became a venue for discussing rights.[4] There is both a semantic gap and a contextual gap between these two iterations, with some of them already being established. Corporate social responsibility is often attributed to the Berle-Dodd debate. The discussion was characterized by diverging views on the extent of the responsibility of managers.[5] It was later settled as positioning the company, especially the large firm, as an entity whose existence is fomented by the law due to its service to the community. The concept has evolved with time, departing from a largely philanthropic meaning to being ingrained in nearly every aspect of a company’s operations. This includes investments, entrepreneurship models, and its relationship to stakeholders, leading to an increasing operationalization and globalization of the concept.[6] At first sight, these two movements seem to stem from different contexts. Despite the difference, it is also possible to tell a joint history of bioethics and CSR, with their point of contact being a generalized concern with technological and social changes that surfaced in the sixties. The publishing of Silent Spring in 1962 by Rachel Carson exemplifies this growing concern over the sustainability of the ruling economic growth model of its time by commenting on the effects of large-scale agriculture and the use of pesticides in the population of bees, one of the most relevant pollinators of crops consumed by humans. The book influenced both the author responsible for the coining bioethics in the 1971[7] and early CSR literature.[8] By initiating a debate over the sustainability of economic models, the environmentalist discourse became a precursor to vigorous social movements for civil rights. Bioethics was part of the trend as it would be carried forward by movements such as feminism and the patients’ rights movement.[9] Bioethics would gradually move from a public discourse centered around the responsible use of science and technology to academic and government spaces.[10]  This evolution led to an increasing emphasis on intellectual rigor and governance. The transformation would unravel the effort to take effective action against scandal and turn bioethical discourse into governance practices,[11] such as bioethics and research ethics committees. The publication of the Belmont Report[12] in the aftermath of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, as well as the creation of committees such as the “God Committee,”[13] which aimed to develop and enforce criteria for allocating scarce dialysis machines, exemplify this shift. On the side of CSR, this period represents, at first, a stronger pact between businesses and society due to more stringent environmental and consumer regulations. But afterward, a joint trend emerged: on one side, the deregulation within the context of neoliberalism, and on the other, the operationalization of corporate social responsibility as a response to societal concerns.[14] The 1990s saw both opportunities and crises that derived from globalization. In the political arena, the end of the Cold War led to an impasse in the discourse concerning human rights,[15] which previously had been split between the defense of civil and political rights on one side and social rights on the other. But at the same time, agendas that were previously restricted territorially became institutionalized on a global scale.[16] Events such as the European Environment Agency (1990), ECO92 in Rio de Janeiro (1992), and the UN Global Compact (2000) are some examples of the globalization of CSR. This process of institutionalization would also mirror a crisis in CSR, given that its voluntarist core would be deemed lackluster due to the lack of corporate accountability. The business and human rights movement sought to produce new binding instruments – usually state-based – that could ensure that businesses would comply with their duties to respect human rights.[17] This rule-creation process has been called legalization: a shift from business standards to norms of varying degrees of obligation, precision, and delegation.[18] Bioethics has also experienced its own renewed identity in the developed world, perhaps because of its reconnection to public and global health. Global health has been the object of study for centuries under other labels (e.g., the use of tropical medicine to assist colonial expeditions) but it resurfaced in the political agenda recently after the pandemics of AIDS and respiratory diseases.[19] Bioethics has been accused from the inside of ignoring matters beyond the patient-provider relationship,[20] including those related to public health and/or governance. Meanwhile, scholars claimed the need to expand the discourse to global health.[21] In some countries, bioethics developed a tight relationship with public health, such as Brazil,[22] due to its connections to the sanitary reform movement. The United Kingdom has also followed a different path, prioritizing governance practices and the use of pre-established institutions in a more community-oriented approach.[23] The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Rights followed this shift toward a social dimension of bioethics despite being subject to criticism due to its human rights-based approach in a field characterized by ethical pluralism.[24] This scenario suggests bioethics and CSR have developed out of similar concerns: the protection of human rights and concerns over responsible development – be it economic, scientific, or technological. However, the interaction between these two fields (as well as business and human rights) is fairly recent both in academic and business settings. There might be a divide between these fields and their practitioners. II.     A Tale of Jurisdictions It can be argued that CSR and business and human rights did not face jurisdictional disputes. These fields owe much of their longevity to their roots in institutional economics, whose debates, such as the Berle-Dodd debate, were based on interdisciplinary dialogue and the abandonment of sectorial divisions and public-private dichotomies.[25] There was opposition to this approach to the role of companies in society that could have implications for CSR’s interdisciplinarity, such as the understanding that corporate activities should be restricted to profit maximization.[26] Yet, those were often oppositions to CSR or business and human rights themselves. The birth of bioethics in the USA can be traced back to jurisdictional disputes over the realm of medicine and life sciences.[27] The dispute unfolded between representatives of science and those of “society’s conscience,” whether through bioethics as a form of applied ethics or other areas of knowledge such as theology.[28] Amid the civil rights movements, outsiders would gain access to the social sphere of medicine, simultaneously bringing it to the public debate and emphasizing the decision-making process as the center of the medical practice.[29] This led to the emergence of the bioethicist as a professional whose background in philosophy, theology, or social sciences deemed the bioethicist qualified to speak on behalf of the social consciousness. In other locations this interaction would play out differently: whether as an investigation of philosophically implied issues, a communal effort with professional institutions to enhance decision-making capability, or a concern with access to healthcare.[30] In these situations, the emergence and regulation of bioethics would be way less rooted in disputes over jurisdictions. This contentious birth of bioethics would have several implications, most related to where the bioethicist belongs. After the civil rights movements subsided, bioethics moved from the public sphere into an ivory tower: intellectual, secular, and isolated. The scope of the bioethicist would be increasingly limited to the spaces of academia and hospitals, where it would be narrowed to the clinical environment.[31] This would become the comfort zone of professionals, much to the detriment of social concerns. This scenario was convenient to social groups that sought to affirm their protagonism in the public arena, with conservative and progressive movements alike questioning the legitimacy of bioethics in the political discourse.[32] Even within the walls of hospitals and clinics, bioethics would not be excused from criticism. Afterall, the work of bioethicists is often unregulated and lacks the same kind of accountability that doctors and lawyers have. Then, is there a role to be played by the bioethicist? This trend of isolation leads to a plausible explanation for why bioethics did not develop an extensive collaboration with corporate social responsibility nor with business and human rights. Despite stemming from similar agendas, bioethics’ orientation towards the private sphere resulted in a limited perspective on the broader implications of its decisions. This existential crisis of the discipline led to a re-evaluation of its nature and purpose. Its relevance has been reaffirmed due to the epistemic advantage of philosophy when engaging normative issues. Proper training enables the bioethicist to avoid falling into traps of subjectivism or moralism, which are unable to address the complexity of decision-making. It also prevents the naïve seduction of “scientifying” ethics.[33] This is the starting point of a multitude of roles that can be attributed to the bioethicists. There are three main responsibilities that fall under bioethics: (i) activism in biopolicy, through the engagement in the creation of laws, jurisprudence, and public policies; (ii) the exercise of bioethics expertise, be it through the specialized knowledge in philosophical thought, its ability to juggle multiple languages related to various disciplines related to bioethics, or its capacity to combat and avoid misinformation and epistemic distortion; (iii) and, intellectual exchange, by exercising awareness that it is necessary to work with specialists from different backgrounds to achieve its goals.[34] All of those suggest the need for bioethics to improve its dialogue with CSR and business and human rights. Both CSR and business and human rights have been the arena of political disputes over the role of regulations and corporations themselves, and the absence of strong stances by bioethicists risks deepening their exclusion from the public arena. Furthermore, CSR and business and human rights are at the forefront of contemporary issues, such as the limits to sustainable development and appropriate governance structures, which may lead to the acceptance of values and accomplishment of goals cherished by bioethics. However, a gap in identifying the role and nature of bioethics and CSR may also be an obstacle for bridging the chasm between bioethics and CSR. III.     From Substance to Form: Philosophical Groundings of CSR and Bioethics As mentioned earlier, CSR is, to some extent, a byproduct of institutionalism. Institutional economics has a philosophical footprint in the pragmatic tradition[35], which has implications for the purpose of the movement and the typical course of the debate. The effectiveness of regulatory measures is often at the center of CSR and business and human rights debates: whatever the regulatory proposal may be, compliance, feasibility, and effectiveness are the kernel of the discussion. The axiological foundation is often the protection of human rights. But discussions over the prioritization of some human rights over others or the specific characteristics of the community to be protected are often neglected.[36] It is worth reinforcing that adopting human rights as an ethical standard presents problems to bioethics, given its grounding in the recognition of ethical pluralism. Pragmatism adopts an anti-essentialist view, arguing that concepts derive from their practical consequences instead of aprioristic elements.[37] Therefore, truth is transitory and context dependent. Pragmatism embraces a form of moral relativism and may find itself in an impasse in the context of political economy and policymaking due to its tendency to be stuck between the preservation of the status quo and the defense of a technocratic perspective, which sees technical and scientific progress as the solution to many of society’s issues.[38] These characteristics mean that bioethics has a complicated relationship with pragmatism. Indeed, there are connections between pragmatism and the bioethics discourse. Both can be traced back to American naturalism.[39] The early effort in bioethics to make it ecumenical, thus building on a common but transitory morality,[40] sounds pragmatic. Therefore, scholars suggest that bioethics should rely on pragmatism's perks and characteristics to develop solutions to new ethical challenges that emerge from scientific and technological progress. Nonetheless, ethical relativism is a problem for bioethics when it bleeds from a metaethical level into the subject matters themselves. After all, the whole point of bioethics is either descriptive, where it seeks to understand social values and conditions that pertain to its scope, or normative, where it investigates what should be done in matters related to medicine, life sciences, and social and technological change. It is a “knowledge of how to use knowledge.” Therefore, bioethics is a product of disillusionment regarding science and technology's capacity to produce exclusively good consequences. It was built around an opposition to ethical relativism—even though the field is aware of the particularity of its answers. This is true not only for the scholarly arena, where the objective is to produce ethically sound answers but also for bioethics governance, where relativism may induce decision paralysis or open the way to points of view disconnected from facts.[41] But there might be a point for more pragmatic bioethics. Bioethics has become an increasingly public enterprise which seeks political persuasion and impact in the regulatory sphere. When bioethics is seen as an enterprise, achieving social transformation is its main goal. In this sense, pragmatism can provide critical tools to identify idiosyncrasies in regulation that prove change is needed. An example of how this may play out is the abortion rights movement in the global south.[42] Despite barriers to accessing safe abortion, this movement came up with creative solutions and a public discourse focused on the consequences of its criminalization rather than its moral aspects. IV.     Bridging the Divide: Connections Between Bioethics and CSR There have been attempts to bring bioethics and CSR closer to each other. Corporate responsibility can be a supplementary strategy for achieving the goals of bioethics. The International Bioethics Committee (IBC), an institution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), highlights the concept that social responsibility regarding health falls under the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR). It is a means of achieving good health (complete physical, mental, and social well-being) through social development.[43] Thus, it plays out as a condition for actualizing the goals dear to bioethics and general ethical standards,[44] such as autonomy and awareness of the social consequences of an organization’s governance. On this same note, CSR is a complementary resource for healthcare organizations that already have embedded bioethics into their operations[45] as a way of looking at the social impact of their practices. And bioethics is also an asset of CSR. Bioethics can inform the necessary conditions for healthcare institutions achieving a positive social impact. When taken at face value, bioethics may offer guidelines for ethical and socially responsible behavior in the industry, instructing how these should play out in a particular context such as in research, and access to health.[46] When considering the relevance of rewarding mechanisms,[47] bioethics can guide the establishment of certification measures to restore lost trust in the pharmaceutical sector.[48] Furthermore, recognizing that the choice is a more complex matter than the maximization of utility can offer a nuanced perspective on how organizations dealing with existentially relevant choices understand their stakeholders.[49] However, all of those proposals might come with the challenge of proving that something can be gained from its addition to self-regulatory practices[50] within the scope of a dominant rights-based approach to CSR and global and corporate law. It is evident that there is room for further collaboration between bioethics and CSR. Embedding either into the corporate governance practices of an organization tends to be connected to promoting the other.[51] While there are some incompatibilities, organizations should try to overcome them and take advantage of the synergies and similarities. CONCLUSION Despite their common interests and shared history, bioethics and corporate social responsibility have not produced a mature exchange. Jurisdictional issues and foundational incompatibilities have prevented a joint effort to establish a model of social responsibility that addresses issues particular to the healthcare sector. Both bioethics and CSR should acknowledge that they hold two different pieces of a cognitive competence necessary for that task: CSR offers experience on how to turn corporate ethical obligations operational, while bioethics provides access to the prevailing practical and philosophical problem-solving tools in healthcare that were born out of social movements. Reconciling bioethics and CSR calls for greater efforts to comprehend and incorporate the social knowledge developed by each field reflexively[52] while understanding their insights are relevant to achieving some common goals. - [1]. Fritz Jahr, “Bio-Ethik: Eine Umschau Über Die Ethischen Beziehungen Des Menschen Zu Tier Und Pflanze,” Kosmos - Handweiser Für Naturfreunde 24 (1927): 2–4. [2]. Van Rensselaer Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 14, no. 1 (1970): 127–53, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1970.0015. [3]. Maximilian Schochow and Jonas Grygier, eds., “Tagungsbericht: 1927 – Die Geburt der Bioethik in Halle (Saale) durch den protestantischen Theologen Fritz Jahr (1895-1953),” Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics 21 (June 11, 2014): 325–29, https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02807-2. [4] George J. Annas, American Bioethics: Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). [5] Philip L. Cochran, “The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Business Horizons 50, no. 6 (November 2007): 449–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.06.004. p. 449. [6] Mauricio Andrés Latapí Agudelo, Lára Jóhannsdóttir, and Brynhildur Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 4, no. 1 (December 2019): 23, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0039-y. [7] Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival.” p. 129. [8] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” p. 4. [9] Albert R. Jonsen, The Birth of Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). p. 368-371. [10] Jonsen. p. 372. [11] Jonathan Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice,” Health Care Analysis 24, no. 1 (March 2016): 3–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0310-2. [12]. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research” (Washington: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, April 18, 1979), https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf. [13] Shana Alexander, “They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies,” in LIFE, by Time Inc, 19th ed., vol. 53 (Nova Iorque: Time Inc, 1962), 102–25. [14]. Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” [15]. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, “Por Uma Concepção Multicultural Dos Direitos Humanos,” Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, no. 48 (June 1997): 11–32. [16] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” [17]. Anita Ramasastry, “Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability,” Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 2 (April 3, 2015): 237–59, https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2015.1037953. [18]. Kenneth W Abbott et al., “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization, Legalization and World Politics, 54, no. 3 (2000): 401–4019. [19]. Jens Holst, “Global Health – Emergence, Hegemonic Trends and Biomedical Reductionism,” Globalization and Health 16, no. 1 (December 2020): 42–52, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00573-4. [20]. Albert R. Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 78, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 21–28, https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/78.1.21. [21]. Solomon R Benatar, Abdallah S Daar, and Peter A Singer, “Global Health Challenges: The Need for an Expanded Discourse on Bioethics,” PLoS Medicine 2, no. 7 (July 26, 2005): e143, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020143. [22]. Márcio Fabri dos Anjos and José Eduardo de Siqueira, eds., Bioética No Brasil: Tendências e Perspectivas, 1st ed., Bio & Ética (São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Bioética, 2007). [23]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8-9. [24]. Aline Albuquerque S. de Oliveira, “A Declaração Universal Sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos e a Análise de Sua Repercussão Teórica Na Comunidade Bioética,” Revista Redbioética/UNESCO 1, no. 1 (2010): 124–39. [25] John R. Commons, “Law and Economics,” The Yale Law Journal 34, no. 4 (February 1925): 371, https://doi.org/10.2307/788562; Robert L. Hale, “Bargaining, Duress, and Economic Liberty,” Columbia Law Review 43, no. 5 (July 1943): 603–28, https://doi.org/10.2307/1117229; Karl N. Llewellyn, “The Effect of Legal Institutions Upon Economics,” The American Economic Review 15, no. 4 (1925): 665–83; Carlos Portugal Gouvêa, Análise Dos Custos Da Desigualdade: Efeitos Institucionais Do Círculo Vicioso de Desigualdade e Corrupção, 1st ed. (São Paulo: Quartier Latin, 2021). p. 84-94. [26] Milton Friedman, “A Friedman Doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” The New York Times, September 13, 1970, sec. Archives, https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html. [27] Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8. [28] John Hyde Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics: A Sociological View, 1st ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). [29] David J. Rothman, Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making, 2nd pbk. ed, Social Institutions and Social Change (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003). p. 3. [30] Volnei Garrafa, Thiago Rocha Da Cunha, and Camilo Manchola, “Access to Healthcare: A Central Question within Brazilian Bioethics,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27, no. 3 (July 2018): 431–39, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180117000810. [31] Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics.” [32] Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics. p. 75-79, 94-96. [33] Julian Savulescu, “Bioethics: Why Philosophy Is Essential for Progress,” Journal of Medical Ethics 41, no. 1 (January 2015): 28–33, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102284. [34] Silvia Camporesi and Giulia Cavaliere, “Can Bioethics Be an Honest Way of Making a Living? A Reflection on Normativity, Governance and Expertise,” Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 3 (March 2021): 159–63, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105954; Jackie Leach Scully, “The Responsibilities of the Engaged Bioethicist: Scholar, Advocate, Activist,” Bioethics 33, no. 8 (October 2019): 872–80, https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12659. [35] Philip Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics,” Journal of Economic Issues, Evolutionary Economics I: Foundations of Institutional Thought, 21, no. 3 (September 1987): 1001–38. [36] David Kennedy, “The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15 (2002): 101–25. [37] Richard Rorty, “Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53, no. 6 (August 1980): 717+719-738. [38]. Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics.” [39]. Glenn McGee, ed., Pragmatic Bioethics, 2nd ed, Basic Bioethics (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2003). [40]. Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). [41]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” [42]. Debora Diniz and Giselle Carino, “What Can Be Learned from the Global South on Abortion and How We Can Learn?,” Developing World Bioethics 23, no. 1 (March 2023): 3–4, https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12385. [43]. International Bioethics Committee, On Social Responsibility and Health Report (Paris: Unesco, 2010). [44]. Cristina Brandão et al., “Social Responsibility: A New Paradigm of Hospital Governance?,” Health Care Analysis 21, no. 4 (December 2013): 390–402, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0206-3. [45] Intissar Haddiya, Taha Janfi, and Mohamed Guedira, “Application of the Concepts of Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Ethics to Healthcare Organizations,” Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Volume 13 (August 2020): 1029–33, https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S258984. [46]The Biopharmaceutical Bioethics Working Group et al., “Considerations for Applying Bioethics Norms to a Biopharmaceutical Industry Setting,” BMC Medical Ethics 22, no. 1 (December 2021): 31–41, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00600-y. [47] Anne Van Aaken and Betül Simsek, “Rewarding in International Law,” American Journal of International Law 115, no. 2 (April 2021): 195–241, https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.2. [48] Jennifer E. Miller, “Bioethical Accreditation or Rating Needed to Restore Trust in Pharma,” Nature Medicine 19, no. 3 (March 2013): 261–261, https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0313-261. [49] John Hardwig, “The Stockholder – A Lesson for Business Ethics from Bioethics?,” Journal of Business Ethics 91, no. 3 (February 2010): 329–41, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0086-0. [50] Stefan van Uden, “Taking up Bioethical Responsibility?: The Role of Global Bioethics in the Social Responsibility of Pharmaceutical Corporations Operating in Developing Countries” (Mestrado, Coimbra, Coimbra University, 2012). [51] María Peana Chivite and Sara Gallardo, “La bioética en la empresa: el caso particular de la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa,” Revista Internacional de Organizaciones, no. 13 (January 12, 2015): 55–81, https://doi.org/10.17345/rio13.55-81. [52] Teubner argues that social spheres tend to develop solutions autonomously, but one sphere interfering in the way other spheres govern themselves tends to result in ineffective regulation and demobilization of their autonomous rule-making capabilities. These spheres should develop “reflexion mechanisms” that enable the exchange of their social knowledge and provide effective, non-damaging solutions to social issues. See Gunther Teubner, “Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law,” Law & Society Review 17, no. 2 (1983): 239–85, https://doi.org/10.2307/3053348.

Governing at a distance to change corporate social responsibility discourse: Navigating through institutions and actors

AbstractIn this paper, we demonstrate what influences the evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) debates. Using the idea of ‘governing at a distance’ (Rose & Miller, 1992) from the Foucauldian governmentality perspective, we identify the mechanisms behind CSR's context‐based evolution. Examining 72 academic texts on CSR from the 1940s to the 2000s, we find that spatial political contexts and power interests shape CSR. We argue that CSR discourse is linked to governing systems and was part of a post‐WWII restructuring to support capitalism against communism in the global order. Our study reveals that academic journals and scholars introduced American CSR concepts to Turkish academia through strong ties to institutions like Harvard Business School and the Ford Foundation, influencing the emergence and change of CSR over time. Changes in CSR discourse are contextually embedded and politically laden with its emergence having a strong governmentality dimension for which academics (through their texts, academic acumen, and affiliated institutions) play a key role as intermediaries governing at a distance. While the critical perspective emphasizes the issues of coercion and contestations, our paper suggests the importance of cooperation and concerted efforts in shaping the global construction of CSR. We have demonstrated the nuanced interplay between the local and global governance of business and academic associations, challenging the perceived rigidity of their boundaries.

Communicating LGBTQ-supportive CSR for corporate legitimacy: a cultural discourse analysis in Hong Kong

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) towards the notions of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DE&I) draws a lot of attention in modern, pluralist society. The organizations’ communicative approach in conveying LGBTQ advocacy to manage tensions and avoid conflicts with various stakeholders is largely underexplored in the Asian context. This study adopts Carbaugh’s cultural discourse analysis (CuDA) to examine the socio-cultural meanings of LGBTQ-supportive CSR discourse for building corporate legitimacy in Hong Kong. CSR materials from leading corporations (2016–2022) and Facebook comments from the public were selected. We analyzed the CSR discourse using the five discursive hubs of CuDA (i.e. identity, emotions, actions, relations, and dwelling) and Suchman’s legitimacy theory (i.e. pragmatic, cognitive, and moral). Our findings revealed three different stages of corporate legitimacy: namely, symbolic, institutional, and contextualized LGBTQ advocacy. The CSR materials intertwining in the five discursive hubs also demonstrated how the organizations attempted to build corporate legitimacy by fostering social change and avoiding conflicts through positive and implicit message-framing of LGBTQ advocacy. Discourse reflected in these CSR strategies illuminated the importance of glocalizing CSR messages to facilitate stakeholder engagement and corporate legitimization in support of this controversially progressive value.

State Ownership and Corporate Social Responsibility: An Investigation on Nigerian Data

Purpose: The paper examines the central issue underpinning the growing international literature and arguments that different ownership types have varying implications for a firm’s CSR engagement. It compliments evolving studies by looking at the effect of state ownership and other types of ownership structures on CSR, specifically in the Nigerian industry. It is argued that the impact of ownership structure on corporate decisions to allocate resources to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has assumed renewed significance in the burgeoning literature of developing economies, given the exigency for corporate executives to allocate firm specific resources to other social objectives that may detract from profit maximization.
 Methodology: This paper differs markedly from the methodologies of previous studies which used composite CSR indices. It deconstructs CSR expenditure into five categories – public goods, socially desirable goods, corporate philanthropy, employee relations and environmental conservation – and estimates the effects of government, foreign and institutional ownership on CSR variables controlling for such factors as firm size, return on assets and capital intensity. Using new data on listed Nigerian firms, this paper carries out its empirical investigation with panel data estimation in order to deal with heterogeneity and endogeneity issues.
 Findings: The findings of this paper indicate that different ownership structures have varying implications for the five forms of CSR investigated in this study. It reveals that government ownership has no significant effect on CSR expenditure on public goods, corporate philanthropy and environmental conservation. However, it finds that government ownership also significantly influences CSR expenditure on socially desirable goods and employee relations.
 Unique contribution to theory, practice and policy:Theoretically, this paper extends the trajectory of CSR discourse to include an elaborate investigation of the impact of ownership structures on CSR practices in all the major sectors of Nigerian economy.The paper argues that its empirical results have several policy implications for good corporate governance practices in Nigeria and other emerging economies. This paper suggests the need to institute incentives schemes and regulatory constraints that would compel government, foreign and institutional ownership to align their incentives with some forms of CSR practices.

Luxury brands and corporate social responsibility (CSR): exploring the differences between traditional and new luxury

Purpose This study aims to comprehend luxury brands' corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies. In addition to facing a demand for new CSR strategies (consumer-centric CSR), changes in CSR discourse among luxury brands are observed. This study examines how CSR-related and luxury-related agendas relate in the news media, especially concerning the difference between traditional and new luxury brands.Design/methodology/approach A total of 117,171 fashion-related news articles were collected from January 2016 to December 2020. The word2vec method was used to determine the relationship between CSR and luxury agendas.FindingsThe results indicate that company-centric CSR is more prominent with traditional luxury brands, while consumer-centric CSR is more relevant for new luxury brands. In addition, specific CSR attributes and luxury-related attributes are associated with media discourse, which means that CSR and luxury are compatible.Originality/valueStudies on CSR in the luxury industry are not extensive in the literature. This study addresses this gap through a unique framework that combines agenda-setting theory and existing CSR literature and applies them to the luxury industry. Specifically, this study captures the development of each construct (company-centric CSR to consumer-centric CSR and traditional luxury to new luxury) and identifies the specific relationships between them. This result provides a novel view of the luxury industry indicating that it has evolved to encompass CSR-related values. The empirical results also offer practical implications for luxury marketing.

Business–society interface: An exploration of a paradigmatic heuristic model of corporate social responsibility in Colombia

AbstractThis study explores how corporate social responsibility (CSR) managers in large companies conceive the business–society interface using a CSR paradigm heuristic model. The research applies a critical management studies perspective, adopting a qualitative approach. We analyze the speeches of 25 CSR managers from large companies representing four economic sectors of an emerging economy. The paradigmatic heuristic model proposes four perspectives regarding CSR, which include functionalist, constructivist, culturalist, and socio‐political paradigms. We validate the proposed heuristic model, revealing the existence of transition zones and overlapping CSR management discourses. We found that there is no single or paradigmatic discourse of CSR among the four economic sectors analyzed. In Colombia, an emerging country, new CSR approaches and discourses are uncovered that can contribute to future contextualized and contingent research in regions with complex business–society interfaces.

Capturing the dynamic tension in CSR discourses: Toward an integrative circuit of culture model

This paper adopts the Circuit of Culture (COC) – an interpretive approach to international public relations practice based on its five moments (i.e., regulations, production, representations, consumption and identity) – as a guiding framework to analyze corporate social responsibility discourses of Wilmar, a multinational corporation based in Singapore. Sustainability reports from 2009 to 2019 were first accessed to examine the negotiation dynamics that occur in textual discourse when the company dealt with the talk-action relationship through the Communication as Constitutive of Organization (CCO) approach. These were integrated with the contextual propositions nurtured in the five moments of COC to identify the negotiating mechanisms that Wilmar constructed to make sense of, explain, and justify tensional situations between set commitments and actual performance. This study aims to demonstrate how CCO can complement COC to offer a holistic interpretive approach to understand the situated communication dynamics and discursive construction process of talk-action relationship in an international public relations context.

Exploring how organizational performance feedback influences corporate social responsibility (CSR): the moderating role of LGBT inclusion

PurposeCorporate social responsibility (CSR) captures organizational actions that account for economic, social and environmental performance. CSR is becoming increasingly relevant for organizations because of changing societal norms and attitudes. Prior research on CSR shows that socially responsible actions are beneficial for the firm and the society. However, much less is known about the antecedents of CSR. The authors suggest that CSR is a strategic organizational decision and use organizational performance feedback theory to explain how organizations decide on CSR activities.Design/methodology/approachUsing a longitudinal sample of 189 US public firms with 1,050 observations, the authors test how performance decreases below aspirations and performance increases above aspirations influence CSR. The authors also test for the moderation effect of LGBT inclusion on these relationships as a proxy for CSR consistency and stakeholder support.FindingsThe authors find that as organizational performance decreases further below aspirations, CSR increases and LGBT inclusion strengthens this increase. The authors also find that as performance increases above aspirations, organizations become more engaged in CSR, but LGBT inclusion does not moderate this relationship.Originality/valuePrior research recently started extending the performance feedback theory to CSR, but empirical findings on the relationships between performance feedback and CSR are seemingly inconclusive. Moreover, studies had primarily focused on performance below aspirations and to a much lesser extent on performance above aspirations. This study aims to better integrate organizational performance feedback theory to the CSR discourse.

A Corpus-based Multi-dimensional Analysis on Chinese and US Corporate Responsibility Reports: A Case Study of HUAWEI and Apple

The discourse of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) report can predict the performance of CSR. Research on the CSR report of international well-known companies can provide reference and encouragement for others listed companies. Based on the multi-dimensional analysis method of Biber, this study investigates the linguistic features of the CSR report discourse of Huawei and Apple. This study makes a comparative analysis of the CSR discourse from the two firms, to explore the differences in discourse functional dimensions between Chinese and American corporate CSR reports. This study finds that, on the one hand, there are differences between Chinese and American CSR reports in dimensions of Involved versus Informational Production, Explicit versus Situation-dependent Reference, and Abstract versus Non-abstract Information. Compared with Apple’s CSR reports, Huawei’s CSR reports are more informative and explicit, but less interactive and abstract. On the other hand, there is no significant difference between Huawei’s and Apple’s CSR reports in Narrative versus Non-narrative Concerns and Overt Expression of Persuasion dimensions, indicating that CSR reports are less narrative and persuasive in both Chinese and American firms. This study has implications for improving the quality of Chinese enterprises’ CSR reports and enlightenment value for corporations to improve social responsibility performance.

Kazakhstan's Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Lullabies: The Power of Culturally Familiar Narratives

Abstract: This study explores corporate social responsibility (CSR) narratives in the former Soviet nation of Kazakhstan using a mixed-method approach. Content analysis of local media treatment of CSR reveals that a worker welfare narrative, a keystone of the Soviet era, dominates coverage. Our survey of Kazakhstani citizens demonstrates that the same narrative is reflected in public understandings of CSR. We suggest that the construction of CSR narratives to closely reflect cultural patterns and historical legacies in posttransitional economies may curtail valuable discussion on how companies can best serve society. That is, the cultural familiarity built into CSR discourse renders it highly acceptable and thereby serves to avert further questioning of corporate practices such as the corruption that is currently widespread. This finding raises ethical concerns around how companies may design their CSR narratives with culturally familiar discursive modes specifically to shield themselves from criticism.

Should we be responsible to their society? Corporate social responsibility of Chinese-owned restaurants in Malaysia

Along with the Belt and Road Initiative, many Chinese investments are going abroad. This research explores corporate social responsibility (CSR) of small and medium-sized Chinese-owned restaurants in Malaysia by investigating the Chinese owners’ understandings and practices of CSR, and the underlying determinants. Based on 23 in-depth interviews with the owners, the research finds that they see their CSR stakeholders include not only customers, employees, local community, competitors, and environment, but their home country–China. Their CSR practices are motivated by profit-oriented and faith-based drivers, while restricted by both personal and external reasons. The study suggests that the interplay of contemporary Chinese pragmatism, Confucianism, and religious teachings, framed by the Malaysian context, underpins the owners’ CSR discourse. Notably, Chinese pragmatism, rather than traditional Chinese culture as represented by Confucianism, is the most prominent determinant. This study contributes to the understanding of CSR in Chinese SMEs overseas from an emic perspective.

Analyzing the Voice of Recipients of CSR Activities from #NBATogether Campaign: Analyzing Twitter Posts and Comments through Critical Discourse Analysis Lens

This study aimed to analyze the voice of recipients of professional sports teams’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis (CDA) was adopted and analyzed 275 tweets from every NBA team that included the #NBATogether hashtag from March 20th to April 20<sup>th</sup>, 2020. Results suggested the public mostly complied with discourses created by NBA teams, but challenging discourses were constantly created in comments. This study provided possible reasons to support these findings. First, the conceptual background of CDA is provided to justify the creation of different discourses in comments. Second, the characteristic backgrounds of users following professional sports teams’ social media were mentioned as a possible cause of complying discourse as dominant in comments. Third, the research also highlighted how social media should not be a panacea for delivering CSR discourse, which brings up the necessity for the traditional media to be considered as not all public have internet access. Finally, the importance of analyzing the public’s discourse was mentioned to emphasize the benefits of both professional teams and communities.

Business as service? Human Relations and the British interwar management movement

To what extent should business have an implication of service when its fundamental purpose is profit-seeking? We explore this issue through a contextually informed reappraisal of British interwar management thinking (1918–1939), drawing on rich archival material concerning the Rowntree business lectures and management research groups. Whereas existing literature is framed around scientific management versus human relations schools, we find a third pronounced, related theme: business as service. Our main contribution is to identify the origins in Britain of the discourse of corporate social responsibility in the guise of business as service. We show that this emerged earlier than commonly assumed and was imbued with an instrumental intent from its inception as a form of management control. This was a discourse emanating not from management theorists but from management practitioners, striving to put the corporate system on a sustainable footing while safeguarding the power, authority, and legitimacy of incumbent managerial elites.

Distilling the curriculum: An analysis of alcohol industry-funded school-based youth education programmes.

Background and aimFor decades, corporations such as the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have used youth education programmes and schools to disseminate discourses, ideas and values favourable to their positions, and to pre-empt regulation that threatens profits. However, there is no systematic research into alcohol industry-funded youth education programmes. This article serves to address this important gap in the literature.MethodsUsing a discourse theoretical approach informed by poststructural discourse theory and critical discourse analysis, we analysed teaching materials from three school-based youth education initiatives which focus on alcohol consumption and health harms: Drinkaware for Education, The Smashed Project (funded by Diageo), and Talk About Alcohol (Alcohol Education Trust). These materials, some of which are disseminated internationally, are provided to schools through intermediary bodies in receipt of alcohol industry funding.FindingsThe analysis found that these materials drew from and presented discourses of personal responsibility, moderate alcohol consumption, and involved a narrowing of the problem definition and causes. The locus of the problem is located by the discourses within individuals including youth, with causes of youth alcohol consumption repeatedly presented as peer pressure and ‘poor choices’, with little or no mention of alcohol industry marketing or other practices. All programmes promoted familiarisation and normalisation of alcohol as a ‘normal’ adult consumer product which children must learn about and master how to use responsibly when older. The discourses constructed in these materials closely align with those of other alcohol industry corporate social responsibility discourses which employ selective presentation of harms, including misinformation about cancer, and ambiguous terms such as “responsible drinking”. Furthermore, the role of alcohol price, availability and access, and the impacts of alcohol and the industry on inequities were not articulated within the discourses. The research was limited to an analysis of teaching materials and further research is needed to explore their impact on youth, teachers and wider discourses and social norms.ConclusionAlcohol industry-sponsored youth education programmes serve industry interests and promote moderate consumption while purportedly educating children about harms and influences of alcohol use. There are considerable conflicts of interest in the delivery of alcohol education programmes funded by the alcohol industry and intermediary bodies in receipt of such funding. Alcohol education materials should be developed independent from industry, including funding, and should empower children and young people to understand and think critically about alcohol, including harms and drivers of consumption, and effective interventions needed to protect them and others from alcohol-related harms. Independent organisations can use this analysis to critique their materials to strengthen alignment with meeting student and public health interests. The ongoing exposure of children and young people to such conflicted and misleading materials needs urgent attention from policymakers, practitioners, teachers and parents, and resources dependent on industry support should cease being used in schools.

Linking corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and organizational performance in the construction industry: A resource collaboration network

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been touted as an important agenda among construction practitioners. Hitherto, the nexus between CSR and organizational performance is still a lack of investigation in the CSR in construction knowledge. This study explores the capabilities of various CSR practices toward achieving productive business benefits among construction firms. Firstly, a two-stage variable formulation procedure results in a list of practices and the perceived benefits of CSR. Then, we collected data from ninety extra-grade construction firms through an online questionnaire survey and analyzed data using a two-mode social network analysis approach. The results of the centrality analysis show that, with the highest centrality scores in the network, (i) the most influential CSR practices include such as “implement safety production management system” and “constrain consumption of materials and reduce material waste”; and (ii) the top key perceived benefits of CSR include such as “local and overseas business opportunities,” “brand, image, and reputation,” and “reduction of supply risk of building materials.” The developed CSR practice-perceived benefit network presents a core-periphery structure, with 26 practices and five perceived benefits situate in the core positions and have intensive relationships. Drawing upon the integrated stakeholder theory and the contingency resource-based view of firms, the demystified novel CSR resource collaboration network enriches the theoretical discourses of CSR by recognizing stakeholder salience and the need for relationship management. Practically, the findings of this study provide a helpful reference for practitioners to collaborate corporate resources, optimize their current CSR strategies, and improve business performance for sustainable development.

The content and determinants of CSR anti-corruption disclosure: the case of public-listed companies in Indonesia

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the content and determinants of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) anti-corruption disclosures (ACDs) of public-listed Indonesian companies using institutional and legitimacy theories.Design/methodology/approachA content analysis method is used to extract the anti-corruption information in the annual reports. This study uses 40 checklist items developed and used by prior studies to measure the extent of CSR ACD. Univariate and multivariate analyses are applied to examine the determinants of ACD.FindingsThe results show that the disclosure level of anti-corruption is considerably satisfactory at 44.9%. The whistle-blowing theme is the most frequently reported. Size of firm and industry type have significant effects on ACD. Surprisingly, the findings show that government ownership has a negative effect on ACD.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is limited to one year of observation and is therefore unable to capture changes in the level of disclosure due to policy changes. The results of this study help anti-corruption decision-makers by taking into account the company’s legitimacy and isomorphic factors when formulating ACD policies and efforts that could be made to promote greater disclosure of anti-corruption information.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the discourse of CSR by providing a more comprehensive extent and more determinants of ACD practice in an emerging country from the lens of legitimacy and institutional theories.

Network Analysis of CSR Spending Practices of Indian Extractive Sector

We examine Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) discourse to compare the change in themes across two time periods separated by policy intervention. The paper further explores internal governance and external implementation mechanism of affirmative CSR policy. We use Text Network Analysis of CSR related expenditure to evaluate the CSR discourse of a sample of metal and mining companies from Indian extractive sector. Results are presented in the form of network graphs. We conclude that CSR initiatives in the extractive sector are primarily devoted to local social development, with little emphasis on environmental sustainability. Further, companies have adopted two-tier governance structures for managing CSR. The top tier comprises board members who formulate CSR programs, and the second tier has executives responsible for the implementation. Another tier of governance involving local domain experts is emerging. The three-tier implementation mechanisms will give firms a tighter control on spending and enhance the effectiveness of initiatives.

CSR Initiatives and Practices: Empirical Evidence From Indian Metal and Mining Companies

This study investigates the corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourse on community and environment by Indian metal and mining (extractive) sector. Specifically, we examine the change in internal governance and external implementation mechanisms in response to affirmative CSR policy actions. Applying text network analysis technique on CSR related expenditures provided in the annual reports and CSR annexures (2014–2018), our study reveals that CSR discourse of extractive firms improved significantly and became more focused after the introduction of post-affirmative policy. CSR initiatives in the extractive sector are primarily focused toward local social development, with little emphasis on the environmental sustainability. Furthermore, companies have adopted two-tier governance structures for managing CSR. The top tier comprises board members who formulate the CSR programs, while the second tier has executives responsible for the implementation. Another tier of governance involving local domain experts is emerging. The three-tier implementation mechanisms give firms a tighter control on spending and enhance the effectiveness of initiatives. We present the results visually in the form of network graphs.