1. CREATION OF A VIRTUAL COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE FOR CSR RESEARCHERS WELCOME Master thesis presentation Kevin Rijke Arjen Kleinherenbrink Tutors Dr. J.J. Jonker Dr. W.P.M. Martens

2.

• Part I

• CSR Introduction

• Early phases of the research

• Literature studies

• Part II

• Methodology

• Execution

• Conclusions and recommendations

3.

• Going beyond financial profit

Considering people, the environment and society as a whole Balancing profit and principles

4.

• What is the current status of CSR research?

Can we improve upon this situation? CSR needs further development in both theory and practice Questions Assumptions A community of practice is an adequate means of realising this development

5.

6.

• Burchell & Cook, 2006; Waddock, 2004; Caroll, 1999; Marberg, 2007; Jonker & Marberg, 2007; Betz, 2006; Roome et al., 2006; Pinkston & Carroll, 1996; Garriga & Mel, 2004; Tencati et al., 2004; Graafland & Eiiffinger, 2004; Quazi & OBrien, 2000; Jonker & Marberg 2007, 7; Nahapiet, 1998; Goshal, 1998; Cannon, 1994; Caroll, 1993; Solomon, 1997; Blair, 1998; Donaldson & Preston 1995

7. 1 Conceptual ambiguity Corporate governance? Ethics? Sustainable development? Corporate citizenship? Corporate reputation?

8. 2 Endless categories Ecological Legal Ethical Philosophical Philantropical Spiritual Reputation Political Humanistic

9. 3 Do x take a visible role in society focus on public prosperity work with employees and their families integrate social and environmental concerns interact with stakeholders on voluntary basis

10. Conclusion: CSR is fuzzy, ondefinieerbaar, fragmented, unco-ordinated and divided.

11. CSR literature study: 1926 - 2007

• Conclusion:

• Constant growth of perspectives and concepts

• Increasing fragmentation

• Lack of elaboration and testing of concepts

12. Friedman Individuals must take responsibility Barnard, Bowen - Organisations must take responsibility Galbraith Government and organisations are responsible 1950-1970

13.

• CSR characterised by:

• Lack of cordination

• Fragmentation

• Inefficiencies

• Lack of identity

• Lack of focus

• This results in two problems :

• MVO does not contribute as much practically applicable knowledge as it should

• Concepts are not elaborated upon or tested empirically, negatively influencing research quality

14.

• A community of practice is an adequate means of realising the needed development in CSR.

15.

• McGovern (2005) Individuals acting collectively with some degree of organization and continuity, partially outside the normal political processes and institutions, to bring about social change.

• CSR is a movement semi-coherent, normative motives, conflicting perspectives.

• As a movement, CSR experiences the aforementioned problems.

16.

• Diani & Bison (2004):

• Individuals group themselves as:

• Movement

• Coalition

• Organisation

17. DISCOURSE Diverse Shared MOVEMENT COALITION ORGANISATION CSR

18.

• Desired future location: CSR as a community?

• Waddock (2004), Marberg (2007) and Jonker (2005) suggest so.

• Een community to facilitate diverse content, without discourse becoming too diverse for interaction

19.

• Groups sharing certain values, maintaining social relations and frequently interacting with each other.

• A geographic component is not a prerequisite for the existence of a community.

20.

• A CSR community is rational (Blokland, 2000): relations are purposeful, with specific goals, engaged by conscious actors.

• A community of practice is the community type best suited for CSR (Glser, 2001):

• Common activities

• Embedded in institutions

• Facilitates developments in both theory and practice

21.

• CSR benefits from developments in theory and practice

• A community of practice can facilitate such developments

22.

• How can a community of practice (CoP) for CSR researchers be created?

• This research aims to find whether and to what extent a CoP for CSR researchers can be created,

• in order to contribute to knowledge and practice development around CSR and to offer her practitioners a professional network to do so.

23.

• Communities of practice an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in

• an endeavor.

• Practices emerge in the course of this mutual endeavor. As a social construct, a CoP is different from the traditional community, primarily because it is defined simultaneously by its membership and by the practice in which that membership engages.

24.

• Characteristics:

• Joint enterprise

• Mutual engagement

• Shared Repertoire

25.

• For CSR, the best type of COP is a Virtual Community of Practice (VCoP)

• A virtual network to eliminate time and space that separate researchers.

26.

• Group of individuals that uses a virtual infrastructure for a specific knowledge domain, emphasizing the creation and exchange of knowlege.

Stimulates sharing knowledge Eliminates time and space Takes advantage of weak ties Swift exchange of information

27.

• These characteristics are thought to eliminate or at least lessen:

• The lack of practically applicable knowledge

• The lack of concept elaboration and testing

28.

• Rules-of-thumb in design

• Contextual enquiry

• User-based design

• Participatory design

• Direct manipulation

• Focused content

• Social protocols

• Institutional memory

• A VCoP can only be facilitated, never fully created.

29.

• This research deviates from academic standards:

• No division between researchers and research object

• No chronological division between theory and practice

This means we are performing action research Action research is a research methodology(Peters & Robinson, 1984: 54) in which action and research happen simultaneously(Altrichter et al., 2002). This creates overlap between researcher and the research object, the field and the laboratory (Whyte et al., 1989; Altrichter et al., 2002).

30.

• Why action research?

• Practical problem

• Developing a CoP parallel to literature studies

• Need to facilitate knowledge processes

• Aiming to realise a radical transformation

31.

• All action research is an intervention(Schein, 1995)

A VCoP for CSR is a Large Scale Intervention:

• Platform for communication and interaction

• Emphasizing knowledge sharing

• No agenda or predetermined content

• Whole scale change: open to all actors

32.

• Offering students of CSR a central platform for:

• Sharing and creating knowledge

• Interaction

• Co-operation

• Reaching out to companies, governments, etc.

33.

34.

• Sharing and creating knowledge

35.

• Interaction

36.

• Co-operation

37.

• Reaching out

38.

39.

40.

• Circa 250.000 visitors after six months.

• 1000 library items after six months.

• Worldwide standard for CSR students.

• Further development of job offerings and resumes.

• CSR Center Business Challenge.

41.

• CSR needs development in theory and practice.

• A VCoP can facilitate this development.

• This should result in more applicable practical knowledge and elaboration / testing of concepts.

• Literature study confirms CSR Center adheres to VCoP design specifications.

42.

• Recommeded research:

• Empirical research into how VCoPs come into existence

• If a VCoP is realised, how does this affect the 5 CSR characteristics?

• And how does it affect the to identified problems of CSR?

43.

• Questions?

• [email_address]