4McDonald.qxd


It is expected of today's business organisations to display

ethical and moral management in their overall business

strategy. Increasing demands on business to respond to social

problems and issues are important components of the current

business environment. “Beyond the traditional obligation of

supplying goods and services, firms now face increasing

pressure on the social front” (Quazi, 2003, p. 822). Over the

last few years, South African organisations are being

particularly pressured into adhering to ethical and moral

standards as part of their corporate governance structure (De

Jongh, 2004). In addition, the terms “social responsibility”,

“corporate citizenship” and “corporate philanthropy” are

increasingly appearing in company strategic documents and

mission statements. Business leaders are thus being called to

accept some accountability for social welfare (Lantos, 2001)

and some are responding by embracing CSR programmes and

agreements, such as the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI)

(Doonar, p. 24).

It can be argued that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has

arisen to enable companies to allay their feelings of guilt

(Diale, 2003; Moir, 2003; Rossouw, 2002). This guilt may

emerge as a result of the pure profit motive of companies –

often at the expense of the environment and the labour

exploited in the process. This has probably been influenced by

the power corporations currently wield, and the challenges that

accompany this power. As Korten states (in Valor, 2005, p. 192)

“corporations have been acquiring increasing power, in certain

cases, even more power than some States without engaging in

the advancement of the common good”. However, Moir (2003,

p. 7) states that “contrary to popular belief CSR is not a product

of 1990s mismanagement of guilt, but has been studied as far

back as the 1950s”. In fact, he believes that the concept of CSR

is a result of a “post-war re-examination of the nature of the

relationship between business, society and governments”

(2003, p. 7).

Financial markets are also starting to rate organisations in terms

of their impact on society – be it environmental or social.

“Corporate social responsibilit y theorists argue that

management should incorporate ethics into strategic goals

because it is the right thing to do” (Key & Popkin, 1998, p. 331).

It enables companies to use their resources to develop solutions

to economic and social problems.

The need for and purpose of research into CSR

South Africa is a developing country faced with changes on

both the business and social front. Organisations are directly

affected by many of the social problems of the nation, such as

the impact of HIV/AIDS on the workforce, economy and

customers, and the lack of education under the previous

dispensation. While government puts additional pressure on

organisations to implement targeted affirmative action

programmes, there is a dearth of skilled resources from which

to draw as a result of the previous education disparities in the

country. Poverty alleviation is a target of the current ANC

government, and businesses are expected to contribute to this

process. The recently launched JSE Socially Responsible

Investment Index and the King Report on Corporate

Governance are indications of the pressure on the South

African corporate sector to be socially responsible (De Jongh,

2004; Hamann, Agbazue, Kapelus & Hein, 2005). As it is,

research conducted by Trialogue shows that South African

businesses spent R2,35 billion on CSR in 2003, (The CSI

Handbook, 2003).

Diale (2003) states that there is growing evidence of Corporate

Social Investment (CSI) practice within the South African

societ y at large. He further observes that a number of

business-run foundations are being established to support this

trend. South African organisations are making progress

towards more CSR and similar investments, but many

businesses still need to see whether benefits are in store for

them as a result of these investments. Hamann et al (2005)

argue that sustainable development challenges are not unique

to the South African situation and that the debates related to

CSR in South Africa are characterized by the particular

prominence of certain priority issues, such as affirmative

action, skills development and HIV/Aids” (2005, p. 5).

Research conducted in other parts of the world shows that

there are differing perceptions of the role that business should

play in the CSR arena. As Saha and Darnton (2005) have

investigated, organisations have varying responses to socially

responsible issues, such as “putting their head in the sand,

taking a defensive approach, paying lip service to concerns,

reactive approaches, following competitors” etc. (p. 117).

According to the CSI Handbook (2003), education is top of the

list of social investment, with 39% of all CSR spend in South

Africa targeted at this sector. 

FIONA MCDONALD

JACQUES LIEBENBERG
staatses@tut.ac.za

Department of Human Resource Management

University of Johannesburg

ABSTRACT
This article explores the perceptions a private Higher Education Institution’s employees have of Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR). Results were gathered from a selection of 19 employees at the organisation, through in depth

face-to-face interviews and one focus group. Results were substantiated across both groups. A brief analysis of

secondary unsolicited data was conducted to further explore the organisation’s role in CSR. It was found that

employees of the organisation are not positively predisposed to CSR and that many of them lack an understanding

of the concept. 

Key words

Corporate social responsibility, private higher education institution

THE PERCEPTIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN A PRIVATE 

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION TOWARDS 

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 

27

SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 2006, 4 (1), 27-35

SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 2006, 4 (1), 27-35



A need thus exists to show the benefits, both socially and

economically, of investing in CSR projects. In fact, Patricia

Aburdene (2005) identifies the socially responsible investment

boom as being one of the ‘megatrends’ of 2010, highlighting

the importance of investigating the concept further. However,

the attitude towards CSR still needs to be determined among

South African organisations and their workforces. If there is an

attitude that CSR is now the responsibility of the business

sector because the government is ill equipped to solve the

country's problems, moves towards creating more CSR

investment in the country will be unsuccessful. Dominique Bé,

of the European Union’s directorate-general for employment,

social affairs and equal opport unities, states that “the

discussion about the business case (for CSR) is behind us” (in

Czerny, 2005, p. 14). Through this, he implies that we need to

move towards more practical actions and away from

philosophizing about CSR (in Czerny, 2005). Even as legislation

around the world shows more government moves to ensure

businesses engage in socially responsible conduct and

investments, complete participation in addressing the social

problems of the country will never be reached until the correct

interpretations and benefits of such CSR are explained. 

Therefore, exploratory studies need to be conducted to

determine the perceptions of South African business leaders and

their workforce of CSR, before explanations can be made as to

why these perceptions exist. Such research has been conducted

in more economically developed nations to enable these

attitudes to be changed. Only with the right attitude, can true

CSR show benefits to both society and the corporate sector.

Thus, this research could provide practitioners and other

researchers with the foundation information they may need to

investigate the reasons behind differing perceptions.

This st udy only focusses on perceptions of CSR. The 

purpose of this research was to conduct an exploratory study

into the perceptions that the organisation’s employees have 

of CSR, to address the need to examine these perceptions

before investigating the reasons behind such perceptions.

Now that these perceptions have been determined, further

studies could be conducted to explain the reasons for such

perceptions as an aid to developing the role business can play

in CSR in South Africa.

Previous research

There is a certain amount of criticism in the management arena

as to whether CSR is merely the latest politically correct

management practice, especially considering that the notion of

Triple Bottom Line (3BL) accounting has become more

prevalent, where “a corporation’s ultimate success or health can

and should be measured not just by the traditional financial

bottom line but also by its social/ethical and environmental

performance” (Norman & MacDonald, 2004, p. 243).

Researchers such as Peter Frankental (2001) argued that CSR is a

public relations invention. He stated this because he believed

that organisations did not take it seriously enough - that they did

not write CSR into the policies etc. "If socially responsible

behaviour does not feed into a company's share price or its

profits, what is the incentive for a company's leadership to

pursue socially responsible policies?" (Frankental, 2001, p.19). A

study conducted in 1976 into the perceptions of CSR of

executives in the USA showed that these business leaders

believed that their opinions and the philosophies had changed in

that businesses should help to solve social problems whether or

not business helps to create the problems - even if there is

probably no short or long term profit potential (Abdul Rashid,

2002, p. 11).

In 1984, a similar study was conducted in the USA, by Ford and

McLaughlin (Abdul Rashid, 2002) comparing perceptions of

CEO's and academic leaders in the higher education sector. This

study showed high agreement in both samples of corporate

acceptance for social responsibility.

In 2001, Abdul Rashid's comparable study in Malaysia showed

that the majorit y of participants agreed that “socially

responsible corporate behaviour can be in the best interest of the

economic shareholders” and “that efficient production of goods

and services is no longer the only thing society expects from

business” (2002, p. 13). In the same study, 66,2% of participants

disagreed that “business already has too much social power and

should not engage in social activities that might give it more”.

Nearly 64% of participants disagreed with the negative

statement that “business leaders are trained to manage economic

institutions and not to work effectively on social issues” (Abdul

Rashid, 2002, p. 13).

The abovementioned research by Abdul Rashid showed that

managers in Malaysia had a positive attitude towards CSR,

consistent with the research conducted by Ford and McLaughlin

among CEOs and Deans of Business Schools in the US in 1984.

Quazi (2003) conducted research in Australia with more

investigation into the reasons for the positive attitudes of

business leaders towards CSR. His research showed a high degree

of positive attitudes towards CSR in Australian businesses, with

a strong link to educational qualification and training, rather

than physical maturity of managers. In addition, this study

showed a strong correlation between religious commitment and

a positive perception of social involvement.

Diale (2003, p. 1) believes that “radical change in the approach

of how we go about our CSI business in South Africa needs to be

revisited”. He adds that certain South African businesses have

done well in the CSI arena – but this cannot be said for all

organisations in the country. CSR in South Africa is becoming

more prominent. He states that it is not only CSR practitioners

in South Africa who are interested in the subject. “How profits

are generated has become a subject of scrutiny and enquiry by

all those who are affected, directly or indirectly” (2003, p 1).

This can be compared to McClenahen’s view of American

organisations where “there’s a tendency to think of corporate

social responsibility as philanthropy and not thinking of it in

terms of what it is fundamentally about” (2005, p. 64). Further,

De Jongh (2004) believes that the increased focus on CSR in

South Africa has started “shifting consumers’ attention towards

corporate behaviour and whether it’s responsible and

accountable” (p. 34).

Attention is being given to the concept of CSR by the South

African academic sector too, with the University of South Africa

(Unisa), and the University of Natal both setting up centres and

programmes respectively, dealing with Corporate Citizenship

(Diale, 2003). 

Such research is necessary in the South African business sector

as businesses are compelled to embrace change on all levels.

According to Tlakula (1999), the processes of political reform in

South Africa warrant renewed attention to social problems.

Government alone is not equipped to address this. However, he

argues that it should be a partnership – where government and

business jointly use the available resources and address social

problems. As such, "renewed interest in social responsibility

could emerge which will require professional management"

(Tlakula, 1999, p. 8).

In fact, Mattson and Wood (2003, p. 61) state that businesses

could “supplant governments in fostering a self-reliant wellbeing

in society”. If, according to them, the rules of business are

changing, organisations should not wait until CSR is legislated.

They need to take ownership of the society in which they

operate, and in which their stakeholders exist, and proactively

drive positive social change. In doing this, large-scale

organisational change may also occur.

One can compare the role of CSR today to the role played by

Affirmative Action in the early 1990s (Diale, 2003). This

McDONALD, LIEBENBERG28



concept was not always managed. Companies who had

implemented targeted Affirmative Action plans before it was

legislated realised far better ret urns on their human

investments than those who did not. Furthermore, companies

that embraced and managed the process of Affirmative Action

saw the direct and indirect benefits more than those

organisations that applied such principles because it was

required, and because it was politically correct.

Nicky Newton-King, deputy CEO of the JSE, and a contributor to

the JSE Sustainability Index, believes that most companies are

already doing more than necessary to tackle the country's

unique challenges, and this should be recognised" (as cited in

Starke, 2003, p. 30).

As such, if we take this example of Affirmative Action, sound

research on CSR is required to ensure that companies are

responsive to the changing face of business, and ensure that CSR

is a well-managed function in every South African organisation.

Previous research has shown a need to further examine the

concept of CSR to accommodate the increased and potential CSR

practices in South Africa (Diale, 2003; De Jongh, 2004; Hamann

et al, 2005; Tlakula, 1999).

“Companies, like individuals, are expected to possess a 

social conscience and not only to achieve economic goals 

but also to use their power and influence to foster the 

welfare of the communit y” (Tlakula, 1999, p. 1). Most

corporate organisations will have some kind of social

responsibility programme in place – depending on what they

define as CSR. It has become worthwhile to have CSR

somewhere in the company activities for its reputational

impact. “No corporate affairs manager will admit that their

company is not socially responsible” (Frankental, 2001, p. 19).

As Van de Ven and Jeurissen (2005, p. 301) assert: “Maybe 

the members of the board of directors are truly motivated 

by a sense of moral duty, maybe they are only backing the

CSR efforts because it is good for business or themselves”. The

fact remains though, that there are still many companies that

have a negative impact on the community in which they

operate, and appear to do nothing about it. This is especially

prevalent in areas, which are more remote and/or rural, 

and practices such as the exploitation of child labour, for

example, are common.

Frankental (2001) further asserts that CSR is no more than a

public relations function because of where it is situated in the

organisational structure. Most often, it is located within external

affairs, community affairs or corporate affairs.

Therefore, research into CSR is necessary to determine how CSR

is perceived by the corporate sector, to enable further research

into explaining attitudes and perceptions.

Research Objectives

This study sought to research the perceptions towards CSR of the

organisation’s employees to identif y the company's future CSR

strategy. The organisation is currently involved in CSR, but not

to the degree that it affords large-scale publicity or large-scale

profit returns. 

This research aimed to identif y the extent to which employees

are aware of the organisation’s various CSR interventions and

whether they believe this is something they, as employees,

should be more involved in? 

Issues to be addressed

The research question for this study was: What do employees

of the organisation perceive CSR to be? The main objective 

was to determine the perceptions of employees of the

organisation towards CSR. A definition of CSR was provided 

to participants. 

In brief, the objectives were:

� To determine the perceptions of the organisation’s employees

in terms of what they believe CSR to be;

� To determine whether these are positive or negative

perceptions;

� To determine whether perceptions differ across levels of

employees in the organisation.

Assumptions

It cannot be assumed that all parties have the same definition of

CSR (Benson, 1978; Eberstadt in Carroll, 1977; McClenahen,

2005). As has already been stated, some organisations interpret

CSR as a publicity tool, partnering with the public relations

department of the business. On the other hand, there are strong

views regarding the expectations of businesses when it comes to

CSR. Corporate citizenship is also a term that has been

associated with CSR and leads to an extended understanding of

CSR (Matten & Crane, 2005). Some authors believe that CSR

should be adopted by an organisation, at all costs. In other

words, returns to shareholders must be considered secondary to

the investment in society. This is what Lantos (2001, p. 606)

terms altruistic CSR – “genuine optional caring, even at possible

personal or organisational sacrifice”. For example, setting up a

day care centre in a rural area would have no financial or direct

benefit to the organisation at all.

As such, it is important to state clearly what CSR is – and then to

allow the research results to determine whether employees see

the organisation's CSR projects as altruistic or strategic.

Definition of CSR

For purposes of this research, the researcher provided the

following definition to all participants: For purposes of

conceptualising CSR, it can be seen as an organisation's pursuit

of profit and economic progress by serving all its stakeholders –

government, employees, investors, customers and society, by

maximising the use of its profits for the advancement of all these

stakeholders.

CSR in South Africa

“The term social responsibility was introduced to South Africa in

the early seventies as a result of the involvement of multi-

national corporations, which operated in terms of codes of

employment practice” (Tlakula, 1999, p. 7). Actually, CSR,

during this phase, was considered the domain of the 'personnel

people' and not the 'industrialists' of business. Alternately,

welfare officers were appointed to deal with the 'problem'.

Renewed interest in CSR in South Africa probably stems from the

political past and the resultant social inequities and problems.

As South Africa continues its process of political reform, more

organisations are viewing CSR as an area of business that

requires professional management.

Ethical considerations

As the research conducted dealt with the perceptions of

individuals, and investigated personal tendencies towards a

sensitive issue, ethical considerations were borne in mind.

Babbie and Mouton (2002, p. 520) argue that “the scientist has

the right to search for the truth but not at the expense of the

rights of other individuals in society”. This was particularly

pertinent when conducting interviews as part of the research, as

the guarantee of anonymity is in the hands of the researcher. 

Babbie and Mouton (2002) state that qualitative research designs

have the following features:

� A detailed encounter with the object of study;

� Selecting a small number of cases to be studied;

� An openness to multiple sources of data; and

� Flexible design features that allow the researcher to adapt and

make changes to the study where and when necessary.

The research design for this study was based on these principles.

CORPOR ATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 29



While the modernist approach to research advocates value-

freedom and objectivity in social research in a quest for the

truth, it also rejects any moral responsibility in an effort to make

social research more scientific (Babbie & Mouton, 2002). The

post-modernist approach, however, argues that “social scientists

are intrinsically linked to their social and historical contexts”

and thus value-free social research is unattainable (Babbie &

Mouton, 2002, p. 40). Further, Neuman (1997) asserts that post-

modernism has a strong reliance on intuition, imagination and

personal experiences and that research can never completely

represent what happens in the social world. 

Post-modern principles have guided this study in that all social

reality cannot exist outside of human reflection and inquiry

(Babbie & Mouton, 2002).

Research Paradigm

The aim of phenomenological research is to understand a

phenomenon from the point of view of those people who

experience it. According to Babbie and Mouton (2002, p. 271) a

qualitative researcher in the phenomenological paradigm

should attempt “to become more than just a participant

observer in the natural setting that is being investigated”. 

A researcher in this context needs to put him or herself in 

the shoes of the people under observation to understand 

their perceptions.

Stones (in Kruger, 1998) argues that regardless of the researcher’s

orientation, it is not possible to remain uninvolved when

conducting social research, “for the human element is

inextricably present even in the most mechanized and

automated research designs, as in the interpretation and

discussion of results” (p. 142). As such, in this study, I have

adopted an approach which acknowledges that all the knowledge

gained from this study, is influenced by my own particular

point of view. My personal world-view determines my attitude

towards the phenomenon of CSR, and thus supports the notion

of researching a subjective reality (Stones in Kruger, 1988).

The choice to explore this phenomenon in a qualitative

environment was guided by my personal scientific values of

human subjectivity, and evidence suggesting that such research

may uncover multiple dimensions of the topic under research

(Neuman, 1997). In addition, to determine how subjects

experience the world in which they work, and how actions and

events in this environment directly impact on the meaning

they give to this world, a qualitative methodology was

appropriate. Lemon (in Du Plooy, 1995, p. 33) states that

qualitative researchers believe that there is no one “objective

'reality' which can be observed and neutrally quantified. Nor

do they believe that human beings are homogenous and that

they can be simply categorised”. Perceptions are highly

individual, and it is thus not always possible to capture these

in a highly generalised manner. The aim of this research was to

determine such perceptions only – not to show any correlation

with any other variables. 

Case Study Design

De Vos (2002) believes that a case study can examine processes

or events, or people and cites Stake (in De Vos, 2002, p. 275) as

stating that “the sole criterion for selecting cases for a case

study should be ‘the opportunity to learn’”. It enables an

investigation of a single unit – in this case an organisation

(Babbie & Mouton, 2002). The selection of a case study setting

was guided by the purpose of the research, as it allows for

exploration and differing methods of data collection. The

decision to examine this phenomenon of CSR in a case study

setting was further guided by my personal circumstances. At

the time the research was conducted, I was employed by the

case study organisation and was responsible for its CSR

activities. Thus, it was beneficial to me as well as to the

organisation to study CSR in this particular organisation. 

RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Approach

The organisation selected for this study was a private higher

education institution, part of a larger private education Group,

based in Johannesburg, South Africa. At the time of the study the

organisation had 100 employees across executive, management,

academic, administrative and elementary levels. At the time of

the research the organisation was undergoing significant change

and restructuring, as a result of a merger.

Selection of participants

The population identified for this study was all functionally

literate employees of a private higher education institution.

Employees with low literacy were excluded in this study. As the

focus of this study was on the perceptions of all employees

across all levels, it was important that the sample included a

range of employees from the elementary levels to senior

management, within the defined parameters, to ensure

representativeness (Durrheim, 1999).

Purposive sampling was used to ensure that the sample was

representative of these levels, as this study was assessing

perceptions of CSR across all organisational levels (Strydom &

Delport, 2002). Babbie & Mouton (2002) state that purposive

sampling is appropriate when the researcher’s knowledge of the

population will enable him/her to ensure that the sample is most

representative of the population. De Vos (2002, p. 207) further

argues that purposive sampling enables a sample that contains

“the most characteristic, representative or typical attributes of

the population”. Thus, it ensures that the techniques used to

construct the sample will ensure that the purpose of the research

is upheld. 

Therefore a sample of 19 participants was selected on the

following basis:

� 4 elementary employees

� 5 administrative employees

� 3 academic employees

� 2 academic heads of department

� 3 administrative heads of department

� 2 executive employees

Bearing these criteria in mind, participants were selected on a

random basis within each department provided they met the

purposive sampling criteria. 

Entry to the research setting

Entry to the research setting was gained via permission from the

then Managing Director and executive committee. The purpose

and context of the research was explained to selected

participants as was the method of participant selection. As I, as

researcher, was known to all participants, there was no resistance

to me using these participants in the study. Thus permission was

gained at the organisational level as well as the individual level

(Schurink, 2005).

Research Methodolgy

Multiple methods of data collection were used in this study.

Data was collected by means of in-depth face-to-face interviews

with the sample selected, followed up with focus groups

comprising different participants. In addition, participant

observation was selected to reveal important information not

overt in an interview or focus group (Cresswell, 1998; Greef,

2002; Neuman, 1997). 

Interview questions were open-ended to encourage further

discussion by the participants. Similar types of questions were

used in the focus groups. 

Participant observation was particularly relevant to this study as

the researcher was “somewhat socialised into the social setting

in which the observation was being done” (Baker, 1999, p. 246).

McDONALD, LIEBENBERG30



As a result of my role as both executive in the organisation, as

well as researcher, I was able to approach the research as both

participant and observer. This participation was overt.

Secondary sources of information used included available

unsolicited documents at the company, including strategic

plans, the company Mission Statement, the company Values

Charter, and the company CSR budget allocation, to ensure

triangulation of the data collected (De Vos, 2002; Strydom &

Delport, 2002). 

Limitations

One of the major potential limitations of the data collection is

that the participants were not anonymous. Certain participants

may have been intimidated in the research setting, particularly

in the presence of the researcher who previously occupied an

executive position at the organisation. 

In an attempt to overcome this potential limitation, the context

of the research was explained to all participants so that they

understand that any implications arising from the data gathered

would not reflect negatively on them. It was not considered

necessary to conduct formal peer debriefing at the conclusion of

the data collection phase, as the researcher had since left the

employ of the organisation and would not be interacting with

the subjects in any way thereafter.

Research Procedure

The procedures used for gathering data were guided by

phenomenological principles. Unstructured in-depth interviews

were conducted with individual participants. After analysis of

this data, focus group sessions were held with the participants in

a group setting. 

Concurrent analysis of unsolicited documents was analysed

throughout the data collection phase. The company has in

existence an organisational strategic plan, a Values Charter, a

mission statement and financial reports indicating CSR spend at

the company. An in-depth analysis of this data took place to

determine the strength of the CSR profile.

Results were recorded on tape and then transcribed into paper

documents, thus minimizing the need to take notes during the

interviews and focus group. Secondary unsolicited documents

were duplicated and kept for analysis. Athens (as cited in

Schurink, 2005) asserts that “the way in which a researcher

makes a study credible is by supplying an adequate account of

his or her research along with the description of its results”.

While a complete account of all observations was not possible

in this context, the recording of data in this way contributes 

to ensuring the soundness and qualit y of the research

(Schurink, 2005).

Data Explicitation 

Data collected was analysed by means of identif ying similar

emergent themes around the concept of CSR. Individual and

common meanings were sought as a means of exploring the

perceptions participants have of CSR (Mouton, 2002). Reasons

for these meanings will not be analysed in any way. This is an

area for further research for explanatory purposes.

In keeping with the methodology for data explicitation of

Groenewald and Schurink (2003), the term “explicitation” has

replaced the term “analysis” on Hycner's (1999, p. 161)

recommendation. Hycner (1999, p. 161) argues that the term

“analysis” has dangerous connotations for phenomenology in

that it implies a “‘breaking into parts’ and therefore often means

a loss of the whole phenomenon”. The term ‘explicitation’

implies an “investigation of the constituents of a phenomenon

while keeping the context of the whole” (1999, p. 161). This

method lends itself to a more interpretative manner of

scrutinising the data.

Data explicitation thus took place within a phenomenological

paradigm, as used by Groenewald and Schurink (2003), and

followed five distinct stages:

� Bracketing and phenomenological reduction

� Delineating units of meaning

� Clustering units of meaning to form themes

� Summarise each interview, validate and modif y

� General and unique themes for all the interviews

RESULTS

Interviews and focus group

The results of the study show that the perceptions of CSR

amongst the organisation’s employees differ significantly.

There was a discrepancy as to how the participants understood

the concept of CSR. Very few participants had actually given

some thought to the concept prior to the interview/focus

group. This said however, most participants agreed with the

definition presented to them for the purposes of this study.

Some of them were not familiar with the profit motives behind

the practices of CSR and questioned the relevance thereof. For

example, one participant stated the following: “I am concerned

about using the words ‘maximising the use of profits’ – I am

not sure my organisation is doing that”. Another participant

used the words: “I don’t know how CSR is linked to

economics”. Most participants agreed with all the listed

stakeholders but some suggested that the order in which

stakeholders are listed in the definition is misleading and ranks

stakeholders in terms of priority.

There was some confusion as to whether CSR should be a

budgeted expense, or should come after profit is declared, and

only if profit is realized. Participants generally felt that it should

be budgeted for, but at the same time, CSR should not be at the

expense of the company. Any company needs to make a profit

first, and then engage in social investment. One such participant

stated: “I think organisations should invest in CSR before they

take a profit. It should be seen as an everyday expense”.

However, it is my belief that without profit, an organisation will

not be in a position to engage in CSR projects.

Furthermore, almost all participants see CSR as somewhat

internally focussed, and I observed that there was often

confusion between human resource practices and CSR. While

there seems to be some understanding of the role of an

organisation as being socially responsible to its employees, the

practices associated with this are confused with human

resources practices. For example, what would normally be

considered an employee benefit is confused with being a CSR

intervention for employees. Participants felt that staff morale

was low, and that caring for one’s staff was a social

responsibility intervention as opposed to being a human

resource practice. One participant also noted that the salary

one is paid for work done is a socially responsible practice on

the part of the employer. 

Some participants were not knowledgeable about CSR in South

Africa. Most participants could identif y South African, and even

international, organisations who have a high CSR profile, but

very few could actually provide details on the kinds of projects

in which these organisations are involved. Organisations listed

were mostly large SA organisations such as Vodacom, Shell,

Nedbank, Standard Bank, MTN, and ABSA. 

Furthermore, participants had differing perceptions on the role

and prevalence of CSR in SA. Many felt that SA is still a

developing nation in this respect, and is doing as much as is

possible to address the social issues of the country. However,

there was a strong perception that SA organisations are

investing in CSR for their own benefit, rather than for the

country to benefit. One participant referred to it has evoking

CORPOR ATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 31



a “fuzzy, warm feeling” of doing good, but it is not necessarily

perceived as doing good for the right reasons. Very few

participants recognised it as being a compliance issue in terms

of corporate reporting.

Many participants also felt that customers are putting pressure

on organisations to become more socially responsible.

Customers may prefer to patronize suppliers who are known for

investing in the community. Participants also believed that this

was linked to the profit motive behind CSR, as more CSR will

result in more customers.

Participants cited reasons for corporations becoming involved

in CSR as anything related to publicity, marketing, free

advertising, ethics, legislative compliance and exposure.

Participants did not believe that organisations invested in CSR

projects for pure philanthropic reasons. One participant stated:

“Well I think it is an image thing – they think it is good for

their image. They wouldn’t do it if they won’t benefit from it”.

It was largely felt that these organisations invest as such to

obtain some kind of exposure and to be seen as doing the

‘right’ thing or keeping up with global best practices and

international pressure. Furthermore, one participant referred

to CSR as being a reaction to “white guilt”, while another

stated that “it touches on ethics”.

On an individual level, CSR was important to all participants.

Many felt that any small contribution classifies as socially

responsible behaviour, and that people should look to their own

immediate environment before trying to reach out to a larger

communit y. However, there was no consistency in the

participants perception of how important CSR was to an

individual seeking a job in SA. For example, when asked whether

an organisation’s CSR profile would influence whether they

accepted employment at that organisation or not, the responses

were varied. For some participants, it was felt that an

organisation that has a strong commitment to CSR will also have

a strong commitment to its employees, and association with that

organisation will instill a sense of pride in employees. However,

many participants also commented that the current economic

climate in SA does not make it possible for people to choose

employers based on CSR profiles. It was felt that the SA

commercial environment is not ‘mature’ enough yet for such

trends. While CSR was important to the individual, most people

are not in a position to choose between jobs – they take what

they can get.

When questioned on the potential beneficiaries of CSR in SA,

most participants required additional information. I observed

that participants were not entirely clear on the definition and

thus could not easily identif y stakeholders. However, for the

most part, it was agreed that the community, NGO’s, NPO’s, the

underprivileged and employees benefited directly from CSR

interventions. There was much debate surrounding the notion of

the government benefitting from CSR. Some participants felt

that the private sector organisations are doing the job of the

government when the government should be using tax income

to uplift society. Others felt that the government did benefit

from CSR, and that this was not necessarily negative. These

participants believe that all members of SA society should be

contributing to CSR in some way as the country as a whole will

benefit in the long term.

Participants generally agreed on the high need areas requiring

CSR intervention. Responses covered areas such as HIV/AIDS,

crime, rape, child abuse, and education. Education and skills

development featured most prominently. One participant also

referred to the needs of the elderly as an area requiring

attention. The environment featured in a minor way.

On a more specific level, participants mostly felt that their own

organisation was sufficiently contributing to community

projects and CSR interventions. None of the participants felt

that the organisation should be doing less CSR. However, this

must be interpreted in conjunction with how participants

understood CSR in terms of employee benefits. After some

discussion and probing, participants agreed that some practices

at the organisation are more CSR issues, and they agreed that

others were purely human resource issues. In general,

participants felt that the organisation’s CSR had both an

internal and external impact.

Themes

Several themes were addressed around the organisation’s CSR

activities and how staff perceived these. This was done to

determine the culture of acceptance of CSR at the organisation.

All participants felt that the organisation was engaged in good

practices, but they agreed that there were employees who feel

that the investment should go to staff first, before the

community is assisted.

From the results, the following 3 themes emerged as significant

to the results:

� Definitions of CSR

� Perceptions of CSR in South Africa

� Participant’s perception of the organisation’s role in CSR

All results gathered can be clustered into the following themes

from which to draw analyses. Figure 1 shows responses from

interviewees according to the above themes:

Figure 1: Interview responses to themes

Table 1 refers to the overall impressions of focus group

participants and compares these responses to the majority

responses of interview participants.

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW

REPSONDENTS TO THEME

Interview Focus

average group

Do not understand definition of CSR no no

Agree with CSR definition provided yes yes

Very knowledgeable of CSR in SA no no

Very familiar with CSR projects in SA no yes

Perceive CSR to be for marketing/ethical/PR reasons yes yes

Believe CSR in SA is adequate no no

Believe the organisation is adequately involved yes/no no

Familiar with the organisation’s CSR projects yes yes

Supportive of the organisation's role in CSR yes yes

McDONALD, LIEBENBERG32

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

U
nd

er
st
an

ds
 d
ef

in
iti
on

 o
f C

S
R

A
gr

ee
s 
w
ith

 C
S
R
 d
ef

in
iti
on

 p
ro

vi
de

d

V
er
y 
kn

ow
le
dg

ea
bl
e 
of
 C

S
R
 in

 S
A

V
er

y 
fa
m
ili
ar

 w
ith

 C
SR

 p
ro

je
ct
s 
in
 S

A

P
er
ce

iv
es

 C
S
R
 to

 b
e 

fo
r m

ar
ke

tin
g/
et

hi
ca

l/P
R
 r
ea

so
ns

B
el
ie
ve

s 
C
S
R
 in

 S
A
 is

 a
de

qu
at

e

Be
lie

ve
s 
th

e 
or

ga
ni
sa

tio
n 
is
 a

de
qu

at
el
y 
in
vo

lv
ed

F
am

ili
ar
 w

ith
 th

e 
or

ga
ni
sa

tio
n'
s 
C
S
R
 p

ro
je
ct
s

S
up

po
rt
iv
e 
of
 th

e 
or
ga

ni
sa

tio
n'
s 
ro

le
 in

 C
SR

Themes

yes

unsure

no

N
o

. 
o

f 
re

sp
o

n
d

e
n

ts

yes

unsure

no

U
n

d
e
rs

ta
n

d
s 

d
e
fi

n
it

io
n

o
f 

th
e
 C

S
R

A
g
re

e
s 

w
it

h
 C

S
R

d
e
fi

n
it

io
n

 p
ro

v
id

e
d

V
e
ry

 k
n

o
w

le
d

g
e
a
b

le
 

o
f 

C
S
R

 i
n

 S
A

V
e
ry

 f
a
m

il
ia

r 
w

it
h

 

C
S
R

 p
ro

je
c
ts

 i
n

 S
A

P
e
rc

e
iv

e
s 

C
S
R

 t
o

 b
e
 

fo
r 

m
a
rk

e
ti

n
g
/e

tc
ic

a
l

/P
R

 r
e
a
so

n
s

B
e
li

e
v
e
s 

C
S
R

 i
n

 

S
A

 i
s 

a
d

e
q

u
a
te

B
e
li

e
v
e
 t

h
e
 o

rg
a
n

is
a
ti

o
n

is
 a

d
e
q

u
a
te

ly
 i

n
v
o

lv
e
d

F
a
m

il
ia

r 
w

it
h

 t
h

e

o
rg

a
n

is
a
ti

o
n

’s
 

C
S
R

 p
ro

je
c
ts

S
u

p
p

o
rt

iv
e
 o

f 
th

e

o
rg

a
n

is
a
ti

o
n

’s
 r

o
le

in
 C

S
R

Themes



What becomes evident after the above comparison is that data

gathered from the focus group mostly supports data gathered

from the interviews. A significant conclusion may be drawn

from the two themes where there was a discrepancy in the

overall response. The focus group participants proved to be

more familiar with CSR in South Africa than the interview

participants. I assume that the dynamics of a focus group have

caused this difference in perception. There was more discussion

around CSR in SA in the focus group, thus triggering more

thoughts about the theme. I observed that when examples of SA

companies involved in CSR were mentioned in the focus group,

more ideas emanated from participants. This is a natural

phenomenon occurring in focus groups. However, in the

interviews, I did not give any examples of SA companies involved

in CSR projects, hence forcing participants to develop responses

based on their own knowledge and not on that of fellow

participants. 

The focus group results also differed from the interview

results with regard to the involvement of the organisation in

CSR. The focus group participants did not believe that the

organisation was adequately involved in CSR, whereas the

interview participants were divided on their responses. I can

assume that the focus group scenario may be more

intimidating for an individual who reveals personal

perceptions on a sensitive issue. The focus group was of the

opinion that not enough was being done by the organisation,

and some of the stronger participants in the focus group

stressed this more than others. 

Participants were generally aware of CSR projects running at the

organisation but felt that the communication around these

projects could be better to ensure that all employees knew what

interventions were in place. In addition, participants felt that

very little involvement was required of employees in the

organisation’s CSR projects, and expressed that this was an area

for improvement. One or two main projects emerged as most

significant for participants.

Several questions were directed towards the participants 

with regard to their perceptions of the organisation being a

caring company. I did this to determine perceptions towards

the organisation and to determine whether this has an impact

on how staff perceive CSR. The participants were again

polarised on this issue. While some felt that the organisation

was a very caring company, others felt that it did not treat 

its staff well.

While some participants had limited involvement in

community work or CSR projects, most participants were not

formally involved in any such projects. This issue was addressed

with participants to determine a predisposition towards CSR, or

prior knowledge, as this may affect perceptions of CSR.

One of the objectives of the study was to identif y whether

perceptions differ across employment levels. The results

gathered reveal that lower level employees are not as aware of the

concept of CSR as the higher level employees. They view it on a

micro environmental level only, and not in the broader SA

society. In addition, each participant at an elementary or lower

administration level in the organisation perceives CSR as a good

thing, and believes it is important to them.

Academic staff were more verbal about the role of CSR as well as

the definition of CSR presented to them. These participants

questioned the definition of CSR more than the elementary

employees did, and also demonstrated a higher level of

comprehension of the definition of CSR and the associated

interview questions.

The focus group conducted after the interviews showed the same

trends. Elementary staff knew less about the concept and offered

less opinion during the discussion. 

Secondary data

The organisation does not have a dedicated CSR strategy guiding

its CSR activities. CSR is also not mentioned in its overall

strategic planning documentation. However, the organisation

embarked on a Values Charter planning project in 2003, out of

which emerged a set of core values guiding all organisational

behaviour, planning and strategies. A list of values were

identified by Executive staff, after which this list was presented

to staff for the final decision. Staff voted on the values and

Social Responsibility was identified as a core value for the

organisation.

There is no dedicated CSR budget as most of the projects in

which the organisation is involved focus on the provision of free

education, which requires no financial outlay by the

organisation. Further, most employees volunteer their time and

services in such projects.

However, around 1% (R500 000) of the total revenue of the

organisation is allocated to the provision of bursaries to, among

others, financially needy students.

DISCUSSION

Emerging perceptions

Once captured, all results were examined to extricate patterns

and themes around the perceptions of CSR. The main areas of

focus were guided by the research objectives and thus were

grouped according to theme.

Importance of CSR

The results suggest that the organisation’s employees’

perceptions of CSR overall are neither informed, nor overtly

positive, and that the organisation’s employees are not

particularly positively predisposed to CSR. While most

participants felt that CSR was considered important to them as

individuals, they did not feel so strongly to allow it to influence

their choice of employment. The same trends emerged from the

focus group. Very few participants were, or had been, involved

in community work or CSR-type projects at the time of the

interviews and focus groups. I can thus assume that the

participants want to believe CSR is important to them, but on

probing with related questions, it emerged that very few

participants put into practice what they state are their beliefs.

Figure 2 indicates the breakdown of responses gathered.

Figure 2: Interview responses to importance of CSR

Participants gave the impression that the organisation should be

focussing more internally before engaging in external CSR

interventions. I assume from the data gathered that participants

would prefer the broader organisational issues to be resolved

before CSR is afforded priority. Based on the results, participants

were not overtly resentful of the CSR activities of the organisation,

yet their responses to certain statements indicated that staff were

not as predisposed to CSR as they intended to convey.

CORPOR ATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 33

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

CSR very important to individual Would choose a job based on company's CSR

profile

Involved in CSR

Sub theme

N
u
m

b
e
r
 o

f 
re

s
p

o
n
s
e
s

N
u

m
b

e
r 

o
f 

re
sp

o
n

se
s

Sub theme

CSR very important

to individual
Would choose a job based 

on company’s CSR profile

Involved in CSR



From this emerges the notion that participants need to move

away from feelings of guilt, to a level of understanding of CSR.

When this is achieved, the concept of CSR as being a way of

sharing resources and wealth will be better understood.

Reasons for engaging in CSR

The results gathered lead to the assumption that CSR is

considered to be a marketing or publicity opportunity for

companies engaging in such interventions. This supports some

research already conducted in this area, as discussed in the

literature survey. 

The evidence further suggests that the CSR activities at the

organisation are not co-ordinated in any manner, and that there

is no clear communication strategy with regards to CSR. In

addition, secondary document analysis revealed that there is no

targeted CSR strategy at the company, neither is there a

dedicated CSR budget. These results indicate that the participants

in the interviews and focus groups were correct in their

perception that the organisation’s CSR is lacking direction. I can

thus assert that CSR at the organisation is not part of the

organisation’s policy and is thus perhaps not “taken seriously

enough” (Frankental, 2001).

CSR in South Africa

The research conducted in this study shows that participants

perceive the SA corporate industry to not yet have reached a level

of maturity with regards to CSR to see it as a strategic and

significant part of the business. This supports prior research into

CSR in SA that indicates that SA organisations should be

managing CSR in a more professional manner.

From the results of the study, I can assume that either there is

not enough CSR happening in SA to have a significant impact on

participants, or that such projects are not communicated as

widely as they should be. In addition, some participants

suggested that the public never hear of the direct beneficiaries of

CSR in SA. This again supports my assumption that the exposure

gained for a company through such projects is more important

to the company than the actual benefits to the stakeholders,

thus contributing to the negative perceptions of CSR held by

participants.

Summary of perceptions

From these results, I believe that there is no common

understanding of CSR in SA amongst participants, or a common

appreciation of the need for CSR. Participants generally

confused CSR with human resources issues and felt that

employee benefits and employee assistance programmes should

be primary areas of CSR focus within the organisation. There was

also a general tendency amongst participants to assume that CSR

was more about spending money, than investing in a socially

responsible manner. 

It is important to note that at the time of the interviews and

focus groups, the organisation was involved in a large scale

restructuring and change intervention, resulting in instability

and uncertainty within the workforce. This could explain why

many human resources issues emerged in the discussions, and

why there seemed to be hidden negativit y towards the

organisation’s support for its own staff. 

That aside, however, the emerging themes as listed above can be

cross referenced as follows:

There was no clear understanding of CSR amongst recipients,

resulting in somewhat negative or uninformed perceptions of

CSR in SA. This further resulted in the same perceptions

emerging with regards to the organisation itself, however, these

were not overtly expressed. I can assume that this was because I

was a senior executive at the organisation and participants may

not have felt comfortable making negative comments about

their organisation. 

Figure 1 compares the overall positive and negative responses

given. Responses were classified according to Table 1. For

purposes of this research, all uncertain responses were classified

as negative, as they indicated an inherent lack of understanding

or knowledge.

Figure 3: Comparison of positive and perceptions of CSR

I may make assumptions as to the reasons for the lack of

understanding of CSR, based on the participants’ limited

knowledge of the concept. For many participants, they only

developed a rudimentary understanding of the term after the

interview or focus group commenced.

Conclusion

My own perceptions reveal that CSR is a concept that is not well

understood, and thus the negative perceptions surrounding it

beg explanation. I also believe that the emotional context of the

participants played a role in conveying a negative perception,

and it was extremely difficult for both myself, as well as

participants to create an element of distance. From this research,

however, my own view of the role CSR plays in society is

somewhat different. The lack of awareness around this concept

has highlighted the shortcomings of both government and the

corporate sector, and the role they play in the CSR arena. This

said, I still believe that the research is sound, and represents the

perceptions of the selected participants accurately.

There are still differing understandings of the meaning of CSR,

which causes certain perceptions to emerge. The study set out to

establish what these perceptions were, to explore the concept of

CSR in SA in a more scientific manner. Reasons for these

perceptions cannot be scientifically assumed at this point and

further explanatory research must be conducted to examine

these reasons.

REFERENCES

Abdul Rashid, Z. (2002). Executive and management attitudes

towards corporate social responsibility in Malaysia. Corporate

Governance, 2, (4).

Aburdene, P. (2005). Megatrends 2010: The rise of conscious

capitalism. Charlottesville: Hampton Roads Publishing

Company.

Babbie, E & Mouton, J. (2002). The practice of social research.

Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Baker, T.L. (1999). Doing social research. USA: McGraw-Hill.

Benson, C.S. (1978). Business Ethics in American Society. USA:

Claremont Men's College Publishers.

Carroll, A (1977). Managing Corporate Social Responsibility.

Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Cresswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Czerny, A. (2005). Time for action on proven business case for

CSR. People Management, June 2005.

De Jongh, D. (2004). Know your stakeholders. Finance Week,

June 2004.

De Vos, A.S. (Ed). (2002). Research at grass roots. Pretoria: Van

Schaik.

Diale, T. (2003, September). Relooking at Corporate Social

Investment in South Africa. Moneyweb. Pp 1-4. Retrieved

January 29, 2004 from the World Wide Web:

http://m1.mny.co.za/mnsbx.nsf.

McDONALD, LIEBENBERG34

Positive

Negative



Doonar, J. (2005). A question of ethics. Brand Strategy, June 

2005.

Du Plooy, G.M. (Ed.) (1995). Communication Research. Cape

Town: Juta.

Durrheim, K. (1999). Research in practice: applied methods for the

social sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Frankental, P. (2001). Corporate social responsibility – a PR

invention. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 6, (1).

Greeff, M. (2002). Research at grass roots. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Groenewald, T & Schurink, W. (2003). The contribution of co-

operative education in the growing of talent in South Africa:

A qualitative phenomenological exploration. SA Journal of

Human Resource Management, 1 (3).

Hamann, R. Agbazue, T. Kapelus, P & Hein, A. (2005).

Universalising corporate social responsibility? South African

challenges to the international organisation for

standardisation’s new social responsibility standard. Business

and Society Review, 110 (1).

Hycner, R.H. (1999). Some guidelines for the phenomenological

analysis of inter view data. London: Sage.

Key, S & Popkin, S.J. (1998). Integrating ethics into the strategic

management process: doing well by doing good.

Management Decision, 36, (5).

Kruger, D. (1988). An introduction to phenomenological

psychology. Johannesburg: Juta.

Lantos, G.P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social

responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, (7).

Matten, D & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: toward and

extended theoretical concept ualization. Academy of

Management Review, 30 (1).

Mattson, M & Wood, D. (2003). Beyond the triple bottom line:

Towards a conscious model of corporate governance.

Leadership, October 2003.

McClenahen, J.S. (2005). Defining social responsibility. Industry

Week, March 2005. 

Moir, L. (2003). The business world's latest buzzword?: CSR and

what it means to you. Strategic Direction, 19, (6).

Mouton, J. (2002). Understanding social research. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Neuman,W.L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and

quantitative approaches. USA: Allyn & Bacon.

Norman, W & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of

‘triple bottom line”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14 (2).

Quazi, A.M. (2003). Identif ying the determinants of corporate

managers' perceived social obligations. Management Decision,

41, (9).

Rockey, V. (Ed.) (2003). CSI Handbook. Cape Town: Trialogue.

Rossouw, D. (2002). Business Ethics in Africa. Cape Town: Oxford

University Press.

Saha, M & Darnton, G. (2005). Green companies or green con-

panies: Are companies really green or are they pretending to

be? Business and Society Review, 110 (2).

Schurink, W. (2005). Evaluating qualitative research.

Unpublished lecture notes.Starke, A. (2003). Socially

responsible investing and the launch of a South African

index. Leadership, September 2003. 

Starke, A. (2003). Socially responsible investing and the launch

of a South African index. Leadership, September 2003.

Strydom, H & Delport, C.S.L. (2002). Research at grass roots.

Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Tlakula, L.B. (1999). An investigation into corporate social

responsibility: The case of Coca-Cola. Masters Dissertation:

Milpark Business School.

Valor, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate

citizenship: Towards corporate accountability. Business and

Society Review, 110 (2).

Van de Ven, B & Jeurissen, R. (2005). Competing responsibly.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 15 (2). 

CORPOR ATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 35