CSR and Museums Social responsibility and its many faces at

CSR and Museums
Social responsibility and its many
faces at museums
Flemming Just
Museum Director, Professor
Museums of South West Jutland, Denmark
Tangevej 6, DK-6760 Ribe
www.sydvestjyskemuseer.dk
[email protected]
Abstract
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is usually associated with private companies and their
responsibilities towards both the surrounding community and production facilities around the
globe and is related to issues as child labour, climate, environment, and working conditions.
There has even been launched a (voluntary) International Standard, ISO 26000:2010, Guidance
on social responsibility. It aims to be “a first step in helping all types of organisation in both the
public and private sectors to consider implementing ISO 26000 as a way to achieve the benefits
of operating in a socially responsible manner.”
The paper will discuss the CSR-principles and how they can be applied in a meaningful way in a
museum context at a time where museums are faced with many more expectations and
requirements from stakeholders and communities. It will be shown how CSR can be used as a
deliberate management tool and way of organisational thinking that treats internal questions as
well as community oriented issues.
Keywords: CSR, corporate social responsibility, Denmark, museums, Museum of South West
Jutland
1
Introduction
For the last two decades, and especially after the financial crisis starting in 2008, museums have
been faced with many more expectations from stakeholders, and more scrutiny and budget cuts
from local and national authorities. The reaction from many museums has been endeavours to
compensate and to prove even more ‘return on investment’ to their communities. In many
different ways museums are involved in local and regional development and partnerships and
show a strong social responsibility.
The role of museums for community development is in some ways similar to the expectations
that corporations meet. They must act in a responsible way whether it is a company’s local
branch or its international affiliate. To that end the UN developed a charter in 2005, Global
Compact, which stipulates ten principles companies should adhere to.1 A further step came in
2010 when 160 national members of the international stardardisation organisation, ISO, agreed
on a whole new standard, ISO 26000, emphasizing that both private companies and public
institutions should comply with seven principles or core issues, among them community
involvement and development.2
Of course, there is a tremendous difference between a global trade company with production
facilities in low-income countries and a local museum in Cornwall or Taipei. The interesting
thing is that stakeholders’ quest for social responsibility is increasing for both companies and
public institutions. However, until now there are almost none examples of public institutions
formulating CSR-policies.3
This paper will first give an introduction to the CSR-concept. It will be followed by an analysis
of changing expectations and challenges that museums are meeting in these year. The argument
is that the mission of museums is under profound change. In this process, CSR may render part
of the answer of framing such a commitment. A case study from Museum of South West Jutland,
Denmark, will show the potential in applying the CSR-concept.
1
The homepage, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/index.html, gives an impression of the commitment
from UN to try to develop the global social responsibility. A global report has been published every year
since 2007.
2
ISO (2010), Social responsibility - Discovering ISO 26000. See also
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm.
3
A more correct term would perhaps be ISR, Institutional Social Responsibility. However, in a world of a
massive number of acronyms, it is recommendable to stick to a wellknown concept as CSR.
2
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
With the booming industrial development after WW2 many business men found it important to
counterveil the booming capitalism, or rather to combine the capitalistic production form with
social responsibility. An example is V. Kann Rasmussen, inventor of the Velux roof window and
owner of a global company, who saw social responsibility as part of a company’s management
principles (Boje, 2004). Usually, the American economist, Howard R. Bowen is considered the
first to formulate the principles of CSR (Blindheim and Langhelle, 2010). In 1953 he wrote
Social Responsibility of the Businessman. A leading principle should be that
”..businessmen are responsible for the consequences of their action in a sphere somewhat wider
than that covered by their profit-and-loss statements.” (here cited from Rosenstock, 2012, p. 57).
Just like the later concept of sustainability, CSR was hard to pin down. Should it be a goal in
itself as a special normative and ethical commitment, or should it just be applied if a company
could use it as an instrument to achieve economic goals? In the comprehensive literature on CSR
since the 1960s a few authors stand out because they developed models that tried to concretize
the somewhat elusive concept. The most influential has been Carrols’ pyramid (1991).
Figure 1. Carrols’ CSR pyramid
3
The model shows that the basic requirements of a company are to be profitable (stay on the
market) and obey the law. On top of that the company can show ethical and philanthropic
responsibility.
Since the 1990s the interests of environment, employees and consumers have developed to be
significant and legitimate stakeholders of business. This means that corporate executives have to
balance their commitments to the corporation's owners with their obligations to an everbroadening group of stakeholders who claim both legal and ethical rights.
In 2006 professor Michael Porter, famed for his works on the competitiveness of nations,
formulated the concept of strategic CSR together with his Harward-colleague Mark Kramer:
”The fact is, the prevailing approaches to CSR are so fragmented and so disconnected from
business and strategy as to obscure many of the greatest opportunities for companies to
benefit society. If, instead, corporations were to analyze their prospects for social
responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their core business choices, they
would discover that CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed –
it can be a source of opportunity, innovation and competitive advantage.”
(Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Strategic CSR soon became the leading CSR-orientation in most industrialized countries. The
core of the principle is that each company cannot solve all problems in the world, but use CSR to
develop its competitive edge where it has a potential for making a difference (Ramachandran,
2011; Hsu and Cheng, 2012)). An example is the Danish government that passed an act on
strategic societal responsibility in 2008 requiring major companies to report each year on their
CSR-activities.
For many corporations it is a step from implicit to explicit responsibility. Thus, communication
(and branding) about CSR have seen a sharp increase, but first of all it has meant a
professionalization and development of instruments, systematics and documentation. Instead of
ad hoc actions, CSR is now more binding with more concrete commitments.
A major leap forward for putting CSR on the agenda came in 2005 with the UN’s decision on
creating Global Compact. The content is ten principles within human rights, labour, environment
4
and anti-corruption. An example is principle 7: “Businesses should support a precautionary
approach to environmental challenges.” The UN Global Compact asks companies to embrace,
support and enact, within their sphere of influence, the ten principles. All bigger companies are
asked to describe how they comply with the principles, and every year since 2007 the UNGC has
published a report on global CSR. First of all Global Compact has put CSR but primarily in
Northern Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world (Steurer, Martinuzzi and Margula, 2012).
In order to further develop and concretize CSR the International Organisation for
Standardization (ISO), which develops voluntary standards for its 162 member countries,
launched a CSR standard, the ISO 26000, in 2010. It was the result of several years of
preparation with groups representing industry, government, labour, consumers, an nongovernmental organisations. The standard offers guidance on socially responsible behaviour and
possible actions; it does not contain requirements and, therefore, in contrast to ISO management
system standards, is not certifiable. Instead of principles the ISO 26000 describes seven core
subjects and a number of issues under each subject. Human rights, environment, and labour
practices are of course found among the core subjects. Interesting in the context of this paper is
that ISO broadens the scope and has formulated a new major ‘requirement’: Community
involvement and development. It contains seven issues (ISO, 2010):
Issue 1 : Community involvement
Issue 2 : Education and culture
Issue 3 : Employment creation and skills development
Issue 4 : Technology development and access
Issue 5 : Wealth and income creation
Issue 6 : Health
Issue 7 : Social investment
Another broadening was the inclusion of both private companies and public institutions and
authorities as the agents of CSR performance.
The potential benefits of the ISO 26000 and the managerial relevance are still discussed
(Schwartz and Tilling, 2009), and the initial common understanding with the UN Global
Compact has disappeared.4
4
A memorandum of Understanding was developed between the ISO Group and the United Nations
Global Compact in order to both develop and promote the ISO 26000 as the go to Standard for CSR. In
recent years, however, the UNGC, has not accepted the standard.
5
Irrespective of the lacking impact of the ISO 26000 standard, it is a symbol of a global tendency:
Citizens and taxpayers expect that both private and public organisations pay attention to
community involvement and development. Museums are part of that expectation.
Corporate Social Responsibility and museums
In 2012 the Danish parliament passed a new museum act. The objects clause states that museums
should
-
actualize knowledge about cultural and natural heritage and make it available and
relevant
-
develop the use and meaning of the cultural and natural heritage for citizens and society,
and
-
secure cultural and natural heritage for future employment,
and all tasks should be dealt with in a local, national and global perspective. The formulations
are much more active if compared with the 2003 museum act. Here the emphasis was on
preservation of cultural and natural heritage, make collections available for the public, and place
collections and documentation at the disposal for research.
In essence, the Parliament now demands that the museums’ task performance should be more
society and citizen-oriented, and knowledge should be more democratized, i.e. available and
relevant for broader groups in society. At the same time, the Danish Agency for Culture, the
executive branch of the Ministry of Culture, has set up stricter requirements and
recommendations on performance and management. This has resulted in a wave of mergers so
the number of state recognized museums has decreased with one-third. For instance, excavating
museums have faced stricter demands on scientific publication if they will keep their license.
Museums in general are required to have PhDs in their staff if they will apply for funding from
public research councils. Museums are also recommended to have professional boards in order to
comply with society’s and governments’ growing demand for professional management and for
showing more responsiveness to many different groups of stakeholders.
From a Western point of view, museums are still part of the ‘Enlightenment Project’, i.e. the
demand from the 18th century of enlightening the population. But since the turn of the century
6
museums have increasingly also been part of the ‘Development Project’ where they are expected
to be involved in community development. Especially after the 2008 Financial Crisis and the
subsequent reduction of public funding, it has been a matter of survival for many museums to
document the value for their local communities.5 Part of that is also to be more inclusive and try
to attract broader groups in society. The typical visitor at Western museums is still the 4W – the
white, well-off, well-educated woman. Seldom guests are skilled and unskilled labourers, lesseducated people at all ages, young people between 15 and 40, men under 50 years, and first and
second generation immigrants.6
Another major tendency in the museum world is that museums are increasingly expected to be
part of the local economy (Selwood, 2006). Museums are seen as attractions in the experience
economy, and are in cities as well as in rural areas in many cases a driving force in tourism
development.7 At the same time museums are seen as important players in urban renaissance in
hitherto industrial areas with many low-income groups (Bradburne, 2001, 2002). With the
example of Tate Modern in London museums are considered to be important agents of change
both materially, spiritually and demographically, i.e. attracting well-educated young families
with a resulting boom in cafés and creative industries.
A last major tendency is role of museums in developing the learning society. Museums are
expected to open their resources, e.g. electronic archives, for the public and be integral partners
in learning activities, both at the museum, as extra-mural activities, and as partnerships with
many local stakeholders. This role is especially strong as regards informal learning towards
children and young people. In many countries museums offer free access for children, and
museums develop a lot of teaching material. In Denmark, the new act on public schools requires
5
The public funding of Danish museums has almost not decreased, but new major initiatives as new
museum buildings can almost only be realized if a museum finds private donators.
6
The concept of the inclusive museum is a major tendency and has even got its own organisation and
journal. About its focus the network says on its homepage: “In this time of fundamental social change,
what is the role of the museum, both as a creature of that change, and perhaps also as an agent of change?
The International Conference on the Inclusive Museum, The International Journal of the Inclusive
Museum and the On Museums Book series and News Weblog are places where museum practitioners,
researchers, thinkers and teachers can engage in discussion on the historic character and future shape of
the museum. The key question addressed by the community: How can the institution of the museum
become more inclusive?” Another attempt to put inclusion and diversity on the agenda was the ICOM
diversity charter decided at the general assembly in Shanghai in 2010, see
http://onmuseums.com/_uploads/ICOM_Cultural_Diversity_Charter.pdf.
7
Most countries experience rural development problems with low-income and depopulation. Both the
OECD and the European Union have formulated policies to utilize rural amenities, including museums, as
attractors (OECD, 2006, 73-74).
7
that part of the learning should take place outside the school walls. Museums are an obvious
partner with their many offers of making learning more concrete, so both the Ministry of
Education and the Ministry of Culture have taking several joint initiatives to strengthen museums’
role in learning activities.
All in all, we see in these years that museums associations and national public bodies formulate
strategies on the role of museums in society. One well-known example is the vision of the UK
Museums Assocation, Museums change lives. About the purpose the vision states:
“Museums Change Lives aims to enthuse people in the museums to increase their impact,
encourage funders to support museums in becoming more relevant to their audiences and
communities, and show organisations the potential partnerships they could have with
museums, to change people’s lives.” (Museums Association, 2013).
The Danish Agency for Culture is another example. It has settled a Strategic Panel with broad
representation from museums and societal interests and with the aim of defining strategic ways
for the development of museums. For the coming four years the panel has chosen as its umbrella
theme to focus on the societal role of museums, and it will be followed by a number of
discussion papers focusing on the many expressions of that role.
CSR at the Museum of South West Jutland
Museum of South West Jutland covers several municipalities in the Western part of Denmark
and was established in 2008 as a merger of two old museums. In 2012 the museum formulated a
new vision and strategy. The mission sounds:
Museum of South West Jutland
preserves and makes the cultural heritage available,
creates knowledge, experiences and food for thought,
contributes to local and sustainable development
- with a point of departure in South West Jutland
The mission differs from other museum missions in its promise of contributing to local and
sustainable development. Examples are
8
active partner in local and regional tourism development (collaboration with tourism
development organisations both at regional and national level, e.g. marketing at national
level and in neighbouring countries)
contributing to develop experience economy (close collaboration with other museums,
nature organisations, restaurants, hotels, food suppliers a.o.)
implementation of school reform (has created a joint body with the school sector with the
aim of producing learning materials and conducting many concrete courses for children)
regeneration of old town centre (creating new exhibition places that at the same time
contribute to renovation of old buildings and create many new activities for tourists and
citizens)
creating a culture house with other institutions (merger/partnership between museums
and library and involvement of archive and different associations)
supporting local associations (giving rent free space to some associations, supporting
applications, supporting with advice etc.)
Involvement in local development is only one way of showing social responsibility. It is also
about safe working conditions, social inclusion, helping people to set foot on the labour market
etc. In formulating the vision and strategy it was obvious to include chapters on collection and
research strategy, dissemination, internationalisation, organisation, resources etc. However,
something important from the museum’s daily work and practise was missing, and the museum
was also missing some of the strategic pathways it we would like to follow, but which did not fit
into the ‘normal’ headings of a museum strategy paper. Defining its corporate social
responsibility became the solution that embraced some of the soul of the museum’s activities,
both internally and externally. Hence, the CSR covers the following issues:
Working conditions
Environmental and climate policy
Social inclusion
Actions for giving unemployed people a training or job possibility
Open for students and internships
9
Accessibility for disabled
A place for volunteers
Be a local development factor
Some of the issues describe what the museum actually does. Other issues are strategic settings,
e.g. environmental and climate policy. The point of departure is that even a medium sized
museum (c. 45 full-time employed) sets footprints on environment and climate, and that all have
a responsibility for conducting activities in a sustainable way. A task to come is therefore to
formulate a concrete environmental policy with clear actions. Basically, CSR is not something
artificial or some obligations to fulfil when everything else is in place. CSR at the museum is
part of daily management and part of strategic considerations just like internationalisation and
publication strategy. Furthermore, it is important that CSR is embedded in and co-produced
among broad groups of staff and not just a nice sheet of paper from the daily management. All
staff has been involved in deciding upon the different issues.
Next step is that the daily management together with staff representatives have set up a
committee to formulate concrete steps and policies among the issues, where such policies are
still not formulated, e.g. on environment and on volunteers. The daily management will also
have to find an appropriate way of making an annual CSR report to be discussed with the board
of directors and the employees.
Concluding
CSR developed after the Second World Ward as private corporations’ obligation to show
responsibility towards community and society. From the 1990s a more deliberate approach
developed, and especially the environmental challenge and globalisation of production made it
necessary to develop some kind of instruments in order to combat big business’ use of child
labour, use of trees from rain forests, poor working conditions at plants in low-income countries
etc. The UN Global Compact was one step forward for the implementation of CSR-policies.
National policies have further enhanced the attention and emphasized a strategic CSR-approach,
where actions are not supplementary but integrated parts of management and strategy.
10
The ISO 26000 has shown that CSR is relevant not just for private corporations. Public
institutions can make their contributions as well, not least because the scope of the CSR-concept
has broadened.
Simultaneously, museums around the world devote themselves increasingly to CSR-like actions
such as community development, inclusion, social and learning activities. The case-study from
Museum of South West Jutland, Denmark, shows that it is meaningful to formulate a coherent
and comprehensive CSR-policy for a public institution. Still, it is important that CSR is not an
add-on but an integrated praxis and part of daily management and of overall strategy.
Michael Porter and Mark Kramer formulated in 2006 the core of what strategic CSR is:
“If, instead, corporations were to analyze their prospects for social responsibility using the
same frameworks that guide their core business choices, they would discover that CSR can
be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed – it can be a source of
opportunity, innovation and competitive advantage.” Porter and Kramer, 2006, p. 80).
They had (big) business in mind, but the considerations go for public institutions and museums
as well. If museums only focus on taking care of collections and exhibitions then they are
deemed to oblivion and indifference. Societies in general and local communities specifically call
for involving museums. CSR is a tool to formulate strategic orientations in that direction.
11
References
Blindheim, Bjørn-Tore and Oluf Langhelle (2010), A Reinterpretation of the Principles of CSR:
A Pragmatic Approach, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17,
107-117.
Boje, Per (2004), Villum Kann Rasmussen: Inventor and Entrepreneur 1909-1993. Copenhagen.
Bradburne, James M. (2001), A new strategic approach to the museum and its relationship to
society, Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 19, 1, 75–84.
Bradburne, James M. (2002), Not just a luxury…The museum as urban catalyst, in: OECD,
Urban Renaissance: Glasgow: lessons for innovation and implementation. Paris, 214-226
Bulut, Diren and Ceren Bulut Yumrukaya (2009), Corporate social responsibility in culture and
art, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 20, 3, 311-320.
Burton-Jones, A. (1999), Knowledge capitalism. Business, work and learning in the new
economy. Oxford.
Carroll, Archie B (1991), The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral
Management of Organisational Stakeholders, Business Horizons, July-August.
Castells, M. (1996), The rise of the network society. Oxford.
Clark, B. (1998), Creating entrepreneurial universities: organisational pathways of
transformation. New York.
Cooke, P., M. Gomez Uranga and G. Etxebarria (1997), Regional innovation systems:
institutional and organisational dimensions, Research Policy,26, 475-91.
Dobers, Peter and Delyse Springett (2010), Corporate Social Responsibility: Discourse,
Narratives and Communication, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 17, 63-69.
Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (2000), The dynamics of innovation: from national systems
and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations, Research Policy,
29, 109-23.
Gibbons, M. Limoges, C., Nowotny, S., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. 1994. New
Production of Knowledge: Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.
Sage Publications Ltd: London, California, New Delhi.
Hsu, Jui-Ling and Meng-Cheng Cheng (2012), What Prompts Small and Medium Enterprises to
Engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? A Study from Taiwan, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19, 288-305.
ISO (2010), Social responsibility - Discovering ISO 26000.
12
Museums Association (UK) (2013), Museums change lives. London.
OECD (2006), The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance. Paris.
Packalén, S. (2010), Culture and sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 17, 2, 118-21.
Porter, Michael E. and Mark R. Kramer (2006), Strategy and Society: The Link Between
Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harward Business Review,
December.
Ramachandran, Venugopal (2011), Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: A ‘Dynamic
Capabilities’ Perspective, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
18, 285-293.
Rosenstock, Maja (2012), CSR – hvor svært kan det være? [CSR – How difficult can it be?].
Copenhagen Business School, Ph.d serie 34.
Schwartz, Birgitta and Karina Tilling (2009), ‘ISO-lating’ Corporate Social Responsibility in the
Organisational Context: A Dissenting Interpretation of ISO 2600, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 289-299.
Selwood, Sara (2006), Great Expectations: Museums and Regional Economic Development in
England, Curator, 49, 1, 65-80.
Steurer, Reinhard, Andre Martinuzzi and Sharon Margula (2012), Public Policies on CSR in
Europe: Themes, Instruments, and Regional Differences, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 19, 206-227.
Tardits, Manuel (1997), The local-community museum: an architectural challenge, Museum
International, 49, 4, 36-41.
Wan-Jan, Wan Saiful (2006), Defining corporate social responsibility, Journal of Public Affairs,
6, 176-184.
13

Download Report