**1. Introduction**

The past few decades have witnessed Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) gaining momentum as a core concept to facilitate development in the developing nations. Utting ([1], p. 375) is of the view that owing to the changing expectations of society towards business's roles most corporations refined their CSR strategies so as to meet these expectations. However, the paucity of empirical data on the effectiveness of CSR questions the possibility of CSR as a development tool. Kapelus ([2], p. 279) insists that corporate literature on CSR is dominated by references to how corporations perceive themselves to be part of the community and what they have done for the community. Frynas ([3], p. 275) argues that part of the problem

lies in the over-emphasis of scholars who tend to concentrate on the corporate benefits of CSR activities with less attention on providing data on the process and development impact. Yet this is not a problem in itself: the current analyses of literature on CSR say very little on how corporations integrate with the community or engage and how they achieve CSR outcomes. Idemudia [4] supports this assertion by arguing that an understanding of the relationship between CSR and development possibly lies more in the analysis of CSR processes over outcomes.

One of the reasons scholars have lamented the absence of significant evidence of the impact of CSR on poverty and development, for example, is that the current analysis glosses over the CSR processes which are important in showing how corporations strategise their CSR initiatives for the benefit of society. The issue about CSR processes is not a new phenomenon but is a concept that came up some decades back when Jones [5] revisited and redefined the meaning of CSR. In his analysis of the concept, Jones ([5], p. 65) posits that "corporate social responsibility ought not to be seen as a set of outcomes, but as a process". Jones further elaborated that "corporate behaviour should not, in most cases, be judged by the decisions actually reached, but by the process by which they are reached" ([5], p. 65). Since the CSR discourse was developed and shaped over a long period of time, later scholars saw the need to integrate CSR process issues in CSR theorisation [4, 6, 7]. Idemudia [4] took a profound step in showing the significance of analysing CSR processes for the continued growth and development of the CSR agenda. His argument stems from the fact that the outcome-oriented focus of the current discourse neglects the core issues and processes that can enrich our understanding of the CSR-development relationship ([4], p. 99). Newell ([6], p. 556) earlier noted that "mainstream CSR is unable to address the key issues of process by which a company's social and environmental obligations come to be determined, enforced and made locally relevant". The issue about CSR processes looks at how corporations carry out their CSR initiatives and how they engage their stakeholders.

The central aim of this article is to understand CSR processes in a community development context, with emphasis on the reciprocal relationship among key stakeholders using the relationship between Zimplats and Mhondoro-Ngezi community in Zimbabwe as a case study.

This article takes an in-depth focus on corporate-stakeholder engagement processes, the decision-making procedures, the nature of corporate-stakeholder partnerships and the power dynamics between the corporate and stakeholders and how these impact on community development in Mhondoro-Ngezi community. Zimplats Holdings Limited (Zimplats) is 49% owned by Implats (South Africa) and 51% owned by the government of Zimbabwe. The mining company has carried out platinum mining operations in Mhondoro-Ngezi community since the year 2000. As a multinational company a lot was expected from it by the community as there was great belief that development opportunities would accrue to the community as a whole. However, due to lack of major developmental projects in Mhondoro-Ngezi, the researchers of this article sought to understand the various CSR processes and how they affected community development.

## **2. Why a southern CSR agenda?**

Several authors such as Fox [8], Idemudia [9], Christian Aid [10] and UNRISD [7] have highlighted the need for an alternative critical research agenda which indicates that CSR initiatives should not just benefit foreign companies financially but also benefit workers and indigenous communities socially and environmentally in the South. Although the CSR agenda has developed since the 1950s, many

*Between Outcomes and Processes: Revisiting the Discourse on Corporate Social Responsibility… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94476*

scholars believe that it is fraught with many inconsistencies as it leaves behind some critical issues. Idemudia ([9], p. 2) argues that "there is a general consensus that the mainstream CSR agenda has been driven by Northern actors and therefore reflected the priorities and concerns of western societies without sufficient room for other concerns from the South". Fox [8] identified core issues that he saw as limitations of the current CSR agenda.

Not only Fox [8] has called for a new critical CSR agenda but there is a chain of scholars who have witnessed the limitations of the current CSR agenda. The new agenda's focal point is a deeper investigation of how CSR initiatives can contribute to the development of communities in the global South and improve the livelihood conditions of the locals. Blowfield and Frynas ([11], p. 505) attack the current CSR discourse as weak and bad for development. To these authors, the "weak CSR is bad development" school of thought is linked with civil society organisations and critics of business practices. Its argument is that corporations should take responsibility for the broader impacts in society. The efforts to achieve such an objective are hampered by the current CSR practice that is solely focused on profit making. Blowfield and Frynas [11] further show that the failures of the current CSR practices are a result of poor planning and implementation of social programmes by firms (CSR processes). For them, the way out of this situation is through improved partnerships between stakeholders and better constructed and implemented CSR policies. The failure of CSR activities as a result of poor formulation and implementation calls to attention the need to consider CSR processes in our endeavour to understand its impact on development. Scholars such as Idemudia [4] called for the need to shift focus towards understanding CSR processes in trying to ascertain how development and CSR are connected.

## **3. Significance of CSR processes in the southern CSR agenda**

As already indicated from the previous sections, the current CSR agenda overlooks the importance of processes in the overall CSR discourse. There is too much emphasis on outcomes and impacts of CSR without a critical analysis of the processes which bring about the outcomes of CSR. The following section shows how important a concerted focus and analysis of CSR processes is significant in the enrichment of the CSR discourse.

#### **3.1 Understanding corporate-stakeholder engagement**

A focus on CSR processes entails focus on a number of issues that determine the outcomes of CSR initiatives. One of the strategies used by corporations to interact with its stakeholders is the process of stakeholder engagement. According to Greenwood [12], notions of corporate responsibility and the responsible organisation are built upon the notion of stakeholder engagement. According to stakeholder theory, stakeholder engagement portrays an organisational practice undertaken to involve stakeholders in a positive and encompassing manner in organisational activities ([12], p. 316). Phillips ([13], p. 54) sees it as a mutually beneficial scheme of cooperation. Stakeholder engagement has been viewed as a moral partnership of equals between firms and its stakeholders. However, when analysing the stakeholder engagement process one has to be careful that in reality, it is possible that the organisation and its stakeholders may not be of equal status because of the asymmetrical power relations between these two parties [12]. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development ([7], p. 21) mentions that although spaces for multi-stakeholder dialogues have opened up in many developing

countries, there is a sense of mistrust because of the negotiating and bargaining power of various stakeholders.

One of the ways to test the asymmetrical power relations in the CSR practice is to analyse the stakeholder identification and decision-making processes which are some of the strategies involved in coming up with CSR outcomes. According to Idemudia ([4], p. 103) "emphasis on processes entails a focus on stakeholder contestations and interactions, decision making structure and stakeholders that are included and excluded in the projects". If we are to consider these facts as part of CSR processes it can be argued that the current discourse portrays unequal stakeholder engagement processes. According to UNRISD ([7], p. 15), there is need for greater inclusion of stakeholders from developing countries in shaping CSR and accountability agendas. The inclusion of poor indigenous communities, workers, and trade unions in CSR decision-making processes will ensure empowerment and strengthen work place democracy. UNRISD ([7], p. 21) further points out that a concern with the current discourse is its emphasis on a top-down approach, Northern and expert-driven character.

Freeman [14] claims that decision making needs to incorporate multiple stakeholders, and interests. Most CSR initiatives in the South have always assumed top-down approaches where developmental goals and priorities are formulated and implemented by the corporations. Unless corporations include beneficiaries in the decision-making process, the stakeholder engagement process will remain a morally neutral process that is totally dominated by one party with enormous powers [12].

#### **3.2 Understanding the local governance system**

The stakeholder approach views the company at the centre of a range of stakeholders [14]. However it should be understood that, by shifting our eyes and looking beyond stakeholders, we must consider them as part of an intricate and dynamic web of interrelated role-players involved in (un)sustainable development at the local level [15]. Hamann et al. [15] emphasised the need to understand the local governance process as this has implications on corporate citizenship or CSR. Whereas stakeholder engagement focuses more on how the corporation engages its stakeholders in its activities, the local governance system takes a slightly different approach. The reciprocity concept creates a platform for understanding the duties, roles and rights of stakeholders and the firm and therefore there is need to understand how local governance processes affect and influence CSR outcomes. According to Hamann et al. ([15], p. 63) "governance has been defined as the process of providing direction to society, whereby the emphasis is on the relationships between the state and other role-players, including business". This means that local governance encompasses the role and functions of local government, and the various interactions between local government, local citizens and other groups in society [15]. Local governments represent the national government in executing public duties and therefore should be considered as very important stakeholders. The interactions between various stakeholders such as local government, community members, community traditional leaders, and any other interested groups determine crucial aspects of (un)sustainable development, which include service delivery, infrastructure development and spatial planning. Therefore, having an idea of the local governance system reveals important processes that are outside the immediate scope of the company but play a crucial role in an effective corporate citizenship strategy and outcome.

#### **3.3 Utility of multi-stakeholder partnerships**

According to Warhurst [16] and Hamann [17] tri-sector partnerships are important processes that strengthen corporate citizenship outcomes. CSR initiatives

#### *Between Outcomes and Processes: Revisiting the Discourse on Corporate Social Responsibility… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94476*

are not exclusively carried out by corporations but through partnerships with stakeholders such as the community, government, NGOs and private companies for the benefit of all parties [18]. The idea of partnership between the corporations and stakeholders is aimed at addressing the socio-ecological problems. Hamann [15] believes that tri-sector partnerships benefit from the strengths of corporations alongside those of civil society and government and this inversely yields better results for communities and for business than when corporations go it their own way. Owing to the outcry from stakeholder groups, many corporations have assumed the idea of partnering with stakeholders to holistically tackle the social and environmental challenges [18]. Brinkerhoff [19] argues that public-private partnerships (PPPs), which are collaborations between corporations, state, and non-state actors to achieve mutually defined goals, present the best offer of how CSR can contribute towards development priorities. Because stakeholders participate in defining goals and implementing projects, such partnerships can initiate CSR's drive of addressing the development priorities while also meeting private corporate objectives.

A number of community development initiatives in developing countries have collapsed not because they were poorly funded but rather as a result of uncoordinated processes of formulation, implementation and monitoring [20]. Warhurst ([16], p. 59) thinks that the panacea to such issues is the idea of a tri-sector partnership agreement that addresses critical issues by establishing agreed partnership goals, monitoring and reporting systems and collaborative activities. Warhurst goes further to suggest that partnership agreements maybe pre- or post-date the project development phase and be used as a method to make sure communication and participation of stakeholders in relevant decision making, or the funding of social investment programmes.

Through partnerships the usually suppressed voices of the marginalised groups within the stakeholder approach can be heard and make a mark for the concerns of these groups. That is why Soplop et al. [21] view "partnerships as a mechanism for addressing a participation deficit because they involve marginalized groups hence ensuring that their voices are heard". International institutions such as the World Bank have supported the idea of partnerships as they ensure a collective agenda that seeks to stamp out poverty and ensure development [22]. Inputs from the private sector, government and local communities are vital in the success of CSR programmes and this ensures that the "blame game" that has always characterised these relationships is avoided.
